du] för Clark,
Robert A [robert.cl...@providence.org]
Skickat: den 28 maj 2009 02:12
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Re: Performance question
We have some lit fiber between two of our locations as well. The WAN guy
came to us on his own, and asked if we'd like to use some of the DWDM
capacity on the fiber
We have some lit fiber between two of our locations as well. The WAN guy
came to us on his own, and asked if we'd like to use some of the DWDM
capacity on the fiber to run our SAN across between facilities.
Since we already had FC-IP capable switches, the only incremental cost
would be about 5k$ f
Från: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ads...@vm.marist.edu] för Kelly Lipp
[l...@storserver.com]
Skickat: den 27 maj 2009 17:35
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Re: Performance question
I would guess that it won't go any faster via iSCSI. Perhaps it might be
slower d
I would guess that it won't go any faster via iSCSI. Perhaps it might be
slower due to one more protocol conversion on each end.
You can move about one quarter TB/hour over a GigE. So that's 1200 hours to
move all that data... That's a long time!
How about deploying another TSM server local t
(Rob Schroeder wrote on apparently slow backups)...
Assuming there are no strange messages in the schedule log (errors,
warnings, retries), I'd try the following (individually):
(1) for a windows client, I've seen bad performance with settings other
than:
TCPBUFFSIZE 31
TCP
U need to tune both dsm.opt and dsmserv.opt .
U also need to tune optional parameters.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: performance question
I have tried the ftp and can transfer
nager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: performance question
Test FTP throughput from client to server. Compare to backup speed. What
are the number of files backing up?
Is the 2 Me
Re: performance question
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ST.EDU>
10/01/2001
12:27 PM
Please respond
CONFIDENTIAL
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: performance question
The network transfer rate is not particularly useful
look for something in TSM, or in the client file
system.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: performance question
I have turned compression off, but to no avail. The network card is
hput, then the problem is
network related.
If it is a lot faster, then look for something in TSM, or in the client
file
system.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: performance questi
Schroeder
Famous Footwear
"PINNI, BALANAND (SBCSI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 09/28/2001
06:14:52 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL
Rob
to get further details obout your client performance please set the following
parameters in the client option file:
TRACEFILE "C:\TSM\BACLIENT\TRACE\TRACE.OUT"
TRACEFLAGS INSTR_CLIENT_DETAIL
and don't forget to exclude the tracefile in your client option file with:
EXCLUDE "C:\TSM\BACL
Hi RobHave you tried setting the compression to no? There is no need to use compression on a gigabit interface, it will onlyslow the client down, and the wait time for the session will get higher. I would also try setting the tcpwindowsize higher. A Windows 2000 machine can handle a windowsize up
14 matches
Mail list logo
