On Thursday 26 October 2006 21:29, Allen S. Rout wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:34:31 -0500, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
> >
> > You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether
> > sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because
> > RAID5 is
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:34:31 -0500, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether
> sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because
> RAID5 is quite slow for writing. RAID5 is really only good for
> read-mostly ap
On 10/26/06, Thomas Denier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Daniel Clark wrote: -
>On 10/25/06, Thomas Denier wrote:
>> The first problem is that things get really ugly if the storage
>> pools collectively get larger than the shared disk space.
>
>Ugly in what kind of way? Clients don't just
On 10/26/06, Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bos, Karel
>For normal backup data I like to use JBOD config. No read protection at
>all and maximum usable GB per disk. In order to minimize the number of
>storage pools ne
On 10/26/06, Bos, Karel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reading the thread and missing something. Why another stg?
You may have missed it, as the reason that prompted my question was
buried in one of the later replies - basically I need to have a
"special" storage pool for a limited set of machines
-Daniel Clark wrote: -
>On 10/25/06, Thomas Denier wrote:
>> The first problem is that things get really ugly if the storage
>> pools collectively get larger than the shared disk space.
>
>Ugly in what kind of way? Clients don't just block until one of the
>FILE class devices on disk is m
we are using RAID5 in last 6 years as diskpools with no problems whatsoever
we used SSA, now we are using SATA on DS4100
goran
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Stapleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Using FILE instead
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bos, Karel
>For normal backup data I like to use JBOD config. No read protection at
>all and maximum usable GB per disk. In order to minimize the number of
>storage pools needed, ITSM 5.3 has the collecation by group option.
Ther
instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk
under-utilization
On 10/26/06, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether
> sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because
> RAID5 is quite slow for writing.
On 10/26/06, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether
sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because RAID5
is quite slow for writing. RAID5 is really only good for read-mostly
applications, so at least you'll mi
You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether
sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because RAID5
is quite slow for writing. RAID5 is really only good for read-mostly
applications, so at least you'll migrate quickly. You probably want
RAID10 instead, a stripe
On 10/25/06, Thomas Denier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are using this kind of setup with TSM 5.2. We have run into two
types of problems.
The first problem is that things get really ugly if the storage
pools collectively get larger than the shared disk space.
Ugly in what kind of way? Client
On 10/25/06, Prather, Wanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Um. I don't really see what the issue is.
TSM is elegantly designed to automatically compensate for a disk pool
being too small on occasion by kicking in the migration to tape
automatically for you, based on the thresholds you set.
So it's
- Daniel Clark wrote: -
>However in [3] there is anecdotal evidence that for undefined
>reasons,
>this just doesn't work well; however these messages are from 2000 /
>ADSMv3, so I am wondering if anyone has any recent experience with
>this kind of setup in TSM 5.2 or 5.3.
We are using thi
ctober 25, 2006 11:49 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk
under-utilization
I just got a situation that requires yet another storage pool
hierarchy, and I am starting to run into the problem described in [1];
basically I have more than enough disk
I just got a situation that requires yet another storage pool
hierarchy, and I am starting to run into the problem described in [1];
basically I have more than enough disk in aggregate to handle nightly
backup loads, but when partitioned between different disk-based
storage pools, on a nightly bas
16 matches
Mail list logo
