Huh? Please explain further. I thought the whole idea was you didn't need to pre-create volumes....they are automatically created and deleted as needed?
From: Remco Post <r.p...@plcs.nl> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 10/20/2010 02:04 AM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> Hi Zoltan, even with devtype file, using pre-formatted volumes is recommended. On 19 okt 2010, at 21:41, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > Neil, > > Thanks for the info. I have passed this on to my SAN guys since I know > nothing about this aspect of the configuration nor if we can make these > tweaks. > > I am still wondering if I should go back to the traditional fixed size, > pre-formatted volumes. Everyone says filedevclass is supposed to be > faster and better so I thought I would give it a try. > Zoltan Forray > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator > Virginia Commonwealth University > UCC/Office of Technology Services > zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social > security number or confidential personal information. For more details > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html > > > > From: > "Strand, Neil B." <nbstr...@leggmason.com> > To: > ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: > 10/19/2010 01:50 PM > Subject: > Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS > storage > Sent by: > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > Zoltan, > You may need to increase the queue depth for the individual disks > and/or the HBA attached to the disks. > Monitor both the server (iostat/vmstat) and the storage (EMC voodoo > application) for latency and compare the results for consistency. You > may need to adjust the striping of your logical LUNs on the storage. I > have observed serious performance degradation on an older IBM ESS simply > because the logical volumes were created on a single SSA rather than > spread across the entire set of disks. > > Cheers, > Neil Strand > Storage Engineer - Legg Mason > Baltimore, MD. > (410) 580-7491 > Whatever you can do or believe you can, begin it. > Boldness has genius, power and magic. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of > Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:15 AM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with > SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage > > Now that I have ventured into new territory with this new server (Linux > 6.2.1.1), I am experiencing terrible performance when it comes to moving > data from disk (FILEDEVCLASS on EMC/SAN storage) vs my other 6.1 and 5.5 > servers. > > With the server doing nothing but migrating data from this SAN based > stgpool to TS1130 tape, I am seeing roughly 700GB being moved in a > 12-hour > period. On my other, internal disk based TSM servers, I move > multiple-terabytes per day/24-hours. > > So, where should I focus on why this is so slow? Is it because I am > using > SAN storage? How about the FILEDEVCLASS vs fixed, pre-formatted volumes > (like every other server is using)? > > Or is this normal? If it is, I am in for some serious problems. One of > these servers is expected to replace an existing 5.5 server that > processes > 20TB+ of backups, per week (no, I can not go straight to tape due to the > type of backups being performed). > > Suggestions? Thoughts? > Zoltan Forray > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator > Virginia Commonwealth University > UCC/Office of Technology Services > zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social > security number or confidential personal information. For more details > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html > > IMPORTANT: E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Legg Mason > therefore recommends that you do not send any confidential or sensitive > information to us via electronic mail, including social security numbers, > account numbers, or personal identification numbers. Delivery, and or > timely delivery of Internet mail is not guaranteed. Legg Mason therefore > recommends that you do not send time sensitive > or action-oriented messages to us via electronic mail. > > This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged > or confidential information. Unless you are the intended recipient, you > may not use, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this > message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the > author by replying to this message and then kindly delete the message. > Thank you.
