PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Senthil Odaiyappan
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LTO performance
I Have LTO 3583 and using with TSM. I am getting only 5Gb/Hr where as the
spec says it is 10GB/Hr. When i went through the TSM Mailing List Archive
some has suggested to
At the 2001 Storage Conference in Las Vegas, there was a session on LTO
performance. One of the slides showed tested performance of IBM LTO drives
vs. file size. If memory serves, it ranged from 1MB/sec for "small" files
to 20? 30? MB/sec for large files. This is characteristic of t
ECTED]
Onderwerp: LTO performance
I Have LTO 3583 and using with TSM. I am getting only 5Gb/Hr where as the
spec says it is 10GB/Hr. When i went through the TSM Mailing List Archive
some has suggested to change the tape microcode to 0CE1 from 0BN1. But i
could not locate the file 0ce1.fmr in the site :
Senthil
Odaiyappan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LTO p
I Have LTO 3583 and using with TSM. I am getting only 5Gb/Hr where as the
spec says it is 10GB/Hr. When i went through the TSM Mailing List Archive
some has suggested to change the tape microcode to 0CE1 from 0BN1. But i
could not locate the file 0ce1.fmr in the site :
ftp://service.boulder.ibm.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:40:25 -0700, you wrote:
>Has there been any firmware releases which will improve this yet? We are at 0CE1 amd
>atape 5.4.2. Concerns are building that we won't reach the original quoted restore
>time..
Take a look at ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/storage/358x. The latest
Hi TSMers,
Has there been any firmware releases which will improve this yet? We are at 0CE1 amd
atape 5.4.2. Concerns are building that we won't reach the original quoted restore
time..
Ta Muchly,
Latthew
_
Are you a Techie? Get Y
Appreciated!!!
Hoa.
-Original Message-
From: Leopold Hameder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO performance - Update
Hi Hoa
Below again a posting from a few weeks ago - with the microcode - infos
LTO Microcode
]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LTO performance - Update
>
>
> My CE just finsihed putting the latest microcode on the drives. You would
> not belive the difference this made! My databse backup that had been
> taking 4 HOUR
What kind of microcode is that Debbie???
Hoa.
-Original Message-
From: Weeks, Debbie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO performance - Update
My CE just finsihed putting the latest microcode on the drives. You would
Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO performance
>timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rmt1 bs=1024 count=1000
>
>The result was real 21.06 seconds. This falls way short of what I would
>expect when the advertised sustai
anybody either confirm or disprove that for me?
best regards
Juraj Salak
Austria
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet am: Freitag, 20. April 2001 19:40
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: LTO Performance
>We recently upgraded our 3466 model A01 w
Thanks! I have put in a call to my CE.
-Original Message-
From: Leopold Hameder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO Performance
Debbie,
Below a posting from a few weeks ago.
LTO Microcode - Perf Improvement
From
Debbie,
Below a posting from a few weeks ago.
LTO Microcode - Perf Improvement
From: arhoads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:10:46 -0800
I'm posting this to the ADSM-L list so that anyone to whom it applies
can gain the benefit ASAP. I get it from an IBM i
I can get 30MB/sec transfer using /dev/zero but it would make sense to use
some sort of random data (no /dev/random in AIX) for a more realistic
result.
I didn't use the timer from dd as it includes it takes for tape negotiation
and rewind (I noted it from a throughput indicator from our Fibre-Sw
>timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rmt1 bs=1024 count=1000
>
>The result was real 21.06 seconds. This falls way short of what I would
>expect when the advertised sustained transfer rate is supposed to be
>15MB/sec native (30MB/sec compressed). ...
1K seems like a very small block size. Did you try o
have
attached to this system, but I will have him check the items you mentioned
below. Thanks for all your help!
-Original Message-
From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO performance
>timex dd if=/dev/zero
t.
-Original Message-
From: David Longo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO Performance
I have noticed replies related to the LTO. But also noticed that you
changed "everything at once" or so it seems below. I
>timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rmt1 bs=1024 count=1000
>
>The result was real 21.06 seconds. This falls way short of what I would
>expect when the advertised sustained transfer rate is supposed to be
>15MB/sec native (30MB/sec compressed). ...
Debbie - That indeed sounds poor. As Nathan suggest
I have noticed replies related to the LTO. But also noticed that you changed
"everything at once" or so it seems below. I've seen comments from some people that
did "just" the *SM upgrade you did and saw performance problems of various kinds.
Have you looked at areas other than LTO? I'm par
, other
than the initial locate of the data on the tape.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan E King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LTO performance
Debbie,
I saw your post regarding poor LTO performance in the TSM forum. While this
Debbie,
One of the things that may be misleading by doing a
tar test is the read performance of the disk that the
tar file is on. You can use the dd command with
if=/dev/zero to stream null characters from memory to
the device. Example
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rmt1 bs=1024 count=1000
This will
>We recently upgraded our 3466 model A01 with two 3575 tape libraries to a
>3466 model C01 with a 3584 tape library. We also upgraded from ADSM 3.1.1
>to TSM 4.1. I have begun to notice that our tape operations are taking
>significantly longer than they did before. ...
Debbie - I think many of
hen I tried copying lots of small files to the LTO, thruput dropped.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Zarnowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:26:24 PM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LTO Performance
> At 01:19 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, Weeks, Debbie wrote
At 01:19 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, Weeks, Debbie wrote:
>Does anyone out there have any similar experience? We do have support from
>both Tivoli and IBM hardware support, any suggestions on who to call first?
Try running a tar, or some other non-TSM application, to the LTO tape to
see if the poor perf
I have not been monitoring the list for a while, so forgive me if I ask
something that has been covered previously...
We recently upgraded our 3466 model A01 with two 3575 tape libraries to a
3466 model C01 with a 3584 tape library. We also upgraded from ADSM 3.1.1
to TSM 4.1. I have begun to n
er 1 imports, Inc. - Information Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (817) 252-6222
Fax: (817) 252-7299
-Original Message-
From: Ray Pratts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: LTO PERFORMANCE with TSM
I've seen these LTO test results
TSM backup/restore operations with a large (256 MB) file size of data that does not
benefit from compression (e.g. video, audio, and image files)
Backup 12.8 MBs / second
Restore 14.7 MBs / second
Backup/restore operations with large files which benefit
I've seen a lot of things about LTO in this group (mostly good), but I haven't
seen anything that directly relates to performance with TSM. To date, Magstars
were THE best technology for TSM (in my opinion) due to the fact that it didn't
have to back-hitch. I suspect that because LTO uses servo tr
29 matches
Mail list logo
