Thanks Christian, so that would result in; 1 - raid 1 - OS+active log / archive log (2d) 2 - raid 10 - db (4d) 3 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d)
Keeping the active / archive logs on the same raid-1 set won't be an issue I guess as longs as I use two seperate partitions but isn't the backup speed with this setup limited to the two disks in raid-1 that contain the active log? Thanks, Rick On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christian Svensson < christian.svens...@cristie.se> wrote: > Hi Rick, > We hade a wild discussion about this last Tivoli User Group Meeting in > Sweden. > And I think most people got the best performance by using > > RAID 1+0 on DB on as fast disk as possible. (Fusion I/O, SSD or 15K SAS) > RAID 1 for Active/Archive Log > Mutliple RAID 5 for Diskpool > > Best Regards > Christian Svensson > > Cell: +46-70-325 1577 > E-mail: christian.svens...@cristie.se > CPU2TSM Support: http://www.cristie.se/cpu2tsm-supported-platforms > > > ________________________________________ > Från: Rick Kluitman [rick.kluit...@gmail.com] > Skickat: den 22 mars 2012 08:20 > Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Ämne: Best disk layout for new TSM setup with the hardware I got, please > advise > > Hi, > > I am pretty new to TSM and have the task of installing a new setup, I read > a lot about the TSM server installation and did some tests in a VMware > setup. > > The question I have is this, I have a HP server with 10 internal SAS disks > on a raidcontroller that does raid1/raid5/raid10 that will become our TSM > server. > I am thinking a 4 disk raid 5 for the diskpool will be OK, but what do I do > for metadata? > > Do I make one big raid 10 for logging and db files, do I split this up? > I am not sure if 2 or 3 seperate raid sets will be better than one big one, > and if I do split, do I place the activity log / archive log on the same > disk (different fs) and the db on a seperate set? > > So these are my options I guess; > > a) > 1 - raid 1 - OS+archive log (2d) > 2 - raid 1 - active log (2d) > 3 - raid 1 - db (2d) > 4 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d) > > b) > 1 - raid 10 - OS+archive log +active log (4d) > 2 - raid 1 - db (2d) - > 4 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d) > > c) > 1 - raid 10 - OS+archive log + active log + db (6d) > 2 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d) > > > I think option B might be the best option but I am not sure about the 2 > disks for the TSM db, that might be a huge bottleneck? > No dedupe on this TSM server so DB size should be ok. > > Thank you, Rick >
