ard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviada: sex 7/1/05 8:37
Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Assunto: Re: Very slow DB backups
Hi, Paul -
You have your work cut out for you with that train-wreck of a system.
I'd
st regards,
Paul
-Mensagem original-
De: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviada: sex 7/1/05 8:37
Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Assunto: Re: Very slow DB backups
Hi, Paul -
You have you
==> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:37:44 -0300, Paul van Dongen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was called to examine a TSM server in order to make some suggestions to
> improve performance. Upon arrival, I found out a not-so-standard
> configuration:
> TSM 5.1.6.4 on HP-UX 11
> DB: 208 GB split on 20
t is higher, it points to
log volume performance issue.
Ben
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rees, Chris (Corp)
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:44 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very slow DB backups
Hi Paul
A strange volume config indeed.
I could see a situation where the disk array is legacy and no money has
been spent to upgrade it. It sound curiously like someone making due
with what they had and trying to distribute the I/O in any way possible.
Richard Sims wrote:
Hi, Paul -
You have your work cut out for you with that train
: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
.COM.BR> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Very slow DB backups
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.E
Hi, Paul -
You have your work cut out for you with that train-wreck of a system.
I'd begin by questioning the need for all that DB content... There
may be abandoned filespaces which should go, obsolete retention
periods which no one has looked at in years, and perhaps even
Expirations which never
DSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Very slow DB backups
Hello All,
I was called to examine a TSM server in order to make some
suggestions to improve performance. Upon arrival, I found out a
not-so-standard configuration:
TSM 5.1.6.4 on HP-UX 11
DB: 208 GB split on 208(!) volumes of 1GB each s
Hello All,
I was called to examine a TSM server in order to make some suggestions to
improve performance. Upon arrival, I found out a not-so-standard configuration:
TSM 5.1.6.4 on HP-UX 11
DB: 208 GB split on 208(!) volumes of 1GB each spread on 4 LUNs on an EMC box
(95% in use)
Log: 10 v
