on the restore side?
>
>regards,
>
>Paul
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Richard Sims"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
>resolved or not.
>
>
&g
ith success on the restore side?
regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Sims"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
> Paul -
>
> This generally falls under the TS
h 19, 2005 3:17 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Paul,
It is definitely, absolutely, positively, seen it myself - fixed
Been
fixed for years. Forget DIRMC.
Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist St
on the restore side?
regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Sims"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
> Paul -
>
> This generally falls under the TSM term Res
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
> issues resolved or not.
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have
> done long ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate
> directories are created
rday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Paul -
This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. We've
discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on it in ADSM
QuickFacts which you can refer
Paul -
This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. We've
discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on it in ADSM
QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to further pursuit
in IBM doc.
Richard Simshttp://people.bu.edu/rbs
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Pau
onger needed.
Is there any documentation on this somewhere I can reference?
regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "TSM_User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or
DU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I hav
Storage pools consist of one or more volumes, generally disk or tape.
The storage pool gets its volumes via the device class which has a
maxscr setting to limit the volume count and max capacity to estimate or
assign the max size of the volume. The device class also points to a
directory which in t
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Steve Bennett might have said:
> Wanda,
>
> I just added a sata disk array in TSM v5.2 so I'll jump in here.
>
> If you are using one disk partition in Windows for the device class then
> you can let TSM define the number of vols it needs up to maxscr or out
> of disk conditio
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:38:16AM -0500, Richard Sims wrote:
> blocks of 256 KiB minimum...". Could you provide a documentation or web
> site reference for that 5.3 change?
No, sorry. Just the info I received through the PMR. I made the suggestion
to include this in e.g. a README, and that sugge
M-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
> resolved or not.
>
>
> It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25
Tim/Steve
Thanks - got it!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:17 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
1. You
ED]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:49 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Tim:
We are looking at using all disk now for our onsite disk pool with our
next capital$ buy.
Something I've never been sure of -
Whenf you u
it somehow?
Thanks
Wanda
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed
ation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved o
Jurjen -
In this thread, and the "Minor gotcha on upgrade to 5.3" thread, you
indicate that TSM 5.3 has changed things such that "...the handling of
FILE volumes was changed. All writes to such a volume is now done in
blocks of 256 KiB minimum...". Could you provide a documentation or web
site refe
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:29:50PM -0600, Rushforth, Tim wrote:
[DIRMC]
> What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
Probably the fact that sequential volumes are written to in blocks of at
least 256 KB, even when the data is only 1500 bytes. This can cause a lot of
overhead, and the effecti
- Original Message -
in a much faster backup. Now all that being said this new feature in V5.3
warrents new consideration. My new consideration is to stop using DIRMC
pools as the reason they were created in the first place has also long been
fixed.
Which reason is this that has been fixe
directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers that
have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool. Even when none ch
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
OK, after spending a large portion
OK, after spending a large portion of my day reviewing adsm-l post going back to
2000, I'm still not sure. Does anyone know if there is still a performance
problem
running reclamation on a DIRMC random access disk pool?
I came across one post that said it was supposedly fixed, but recommended usin
25 matches
Mail list logo
