We are also getting around 60% in dedup savings. When I compare similar data going to tape I find that simple compression saves us about 40%.
Hans Chr. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:54 AM, PAC Brion Arnaud < arnaud.br...@panalpina.com> wrote: > Michael, Ken and Stephan, > > Thanks a lot for valuable input ! > > Based on your feedback, I believe that IBM is effectively overselling it's > product : best value announced is around 65 %, which means dedup factor > around 2.5 ... > > Reason why I asked is that we are currently making use of Data Domain > VTL's in our shop, which at present time have a dedup factor of 7.7, but > are aging and should soon be retired. > I was wondering if their replacement with a combination of cheap disk > storage and TSM deduped container would be a good idea ... > So far I still need to be convinced : disk (IBM, Hitachi ...) is way > cheaper than a VTL, but TSM dedup rates are seeming to be less than > expected : this will probably force us to buy more disks, thus making such > a solution less attractive. > > Cheers. > > Arnaud > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > Stefan Folkerts > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 5:32 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Real world deduplication rates with TSM 7.1 and container > pools > > We see around 50-65% deduplication savings on the fileclass storagepools, > most common seems to be around 55%. > It requires what I call "deep reclaims" with very low values that need a > lot of time. > We are seeing 60-70% on containerpools but on average it is more like 65% > but that is based on a much smaller install base. > Both in heterogeneous environments. > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ken Bury <kenbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have two 7.1.4 servers, one with devclass file with dedupe, and the > other > > is using containers. The two servers are in a node replication pair so > the > > data on each server is exactly the same. The workload is almost > exclusively > > vmware backups with datamover dedupe and compression. The data reduction > > for both pools is 89%. I like what I am getting from container pools and > > replication. > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:35 Ryder, Michael S < > michael_s.ry...@roche.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Arnaud > > > > > > If IBM made that commitment in black and white, then you should hold > > their > > > feet to the fire. But I am willing to bet this was a salesman > promising > > > "similar performance." > > > > > > There is no technology I know where any deduplication factor can be > > > guaranteed. Perhaps "UP to 4" for certain kinds of data... And > overall > > > reduction of storage is what you should be comparing, not simply the > > > deduplication percentage. > > > > > > Here, try reading at least the introduction of this document, " > Effective > > > Planning and Use of TSM V6 and V7 Deduplication" > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/form/anonymous/api/wiki/f731037e-c0cf-436e-88b5-862b9a6597c3/page/82e361b4-8e96-42cf-b559-0b77df9aed2c/attachment/5cf980b3-807f-464b-a1c0-b896b0cec7e6/media/TSM%20Dedup%20Best%20Practices%20-%20v2.1.pdf > > > > > > We haven't adopted the directory-container pools yet due to their > lacking > > > of support for important features like migration and copy pools, but I > > have > > > no doubt that IBM will be delivering those abilities soon; otherwise, > > there > > > are very limited use-cases for directory-containers. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Mike > > > RMD IT Client Services > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM, PAC Brion Arnaud < > > > arnaud.br...@panalpina.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > We are currently testing TSM 7.1 deduplication feature, in > conjunction > > > > with container based storage pools. > > > > So far, my test TSM instances, installed with such a setup are > > reporting > > > > dedup percentage of 45 %, means dedup factor around 1.81, using a > > sample > > > of > > > > clients which are representative of our production environment. > > > > This is unfortunately pretty far from what was promised by IBM (dedup > > > > factor of 4) ... > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if anybody making use of container based storage pools > > and > > > > deduplication would be sharing his deduplication factor, so that I > > could > > > > have a better appreciation of real world figures. > > > > If you would be so kind to share your information (possibly with the > > kind > > > > of backed-up data i.e. VM, DB, NAS, Exchange, and retention values > > ...) > > > I > > > > would be very grateful ! > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for appreciated feedback. > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > Arnaud > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > Backup and Recovery Systems Administrator > > > > Panalpina Management Ltd., Basle, Switzerland, > > > > CIT Department Viadukstrasse 42, P.O. Box 4002 Basel/CH > > > > Phone: +41 (61) 226 11 11, FAX: +41 (61) 226 17 01 > > > > Direct: +41 (61) 226 19 78 > > > > e-mail: arnaud.br...@panalpina.com<mailto:arnaud.br...@panalpina.com > > > > > > This electronic message transmission contains information from > > Panalpina > > > > and is confidential or privileged. This information is intended only > > for > > > > the person (s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, > any > > > > disclosure, copying, distribution or use or any other action based on > > the > > > > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. > > > > > > > > If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify > the > > > > sender by e-mail, telephone or fax at the numbers listed above. Thank > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ken > > >
