-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On dinsdag, september 3, 2002, at 06:16 , Roger Deschner wrote:
>
> I have had to use the brute force method - "dumb load balancing". That
> is, squeezing the database into the shape I want with DELETE DBVOL.
> Making this work takes careful advance
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:backup performance with db and log on a SAN
I recently moved the 36G TSM database and 10G log from attached SCSI disk
drives to a SAN. Backing the db no
nt: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
On maandag, september 2, 2002, at 01:49 , Daniel Sparrman wrote:
> Hi Eliza
>
> As I understand it, each "tape-HBA" has 3 3590E FC connnected to it.
> The two 21G da
In my experience, "smart load balancing" does not really exist. I
thought I had heard of it, so I went looking on my system to see if it
was doing anything to help. If the Database has plenty of room in it,
and you add a new extent in hope of spreading out the I/O load, that
extent will not be use
Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2002-09-02 12:19
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject:Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
>
>
> Thanks D
On maandag, september 2, 2002, at 01:49 , Daniel Sparrman wrote:
> Hi Eliza
>
> As I understand it, each "tape-HBA" has 3 3590E FC connnected to it. The
> two 21G database disks, are each connected to it's own HBA?
>
> According to spec sheets, the 3590E FC could handle speed up to 100MB/s
> with
Roger,
Thanks for the detailed analysis. This is what I was planning to do: moved
the db back to attahced SCSI drives. Re-configuring one drawer in the Shark
to non-RAID as another person suggested is out of the question since TSM
is using only a small portion of the Shark. Please read the oth
obil: 070 - 399 27 51
>
>
>
>
> Remco Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2002-09-02 10:48
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
. Seay, Jr.
Technical Specialist
Naptheon Inc.
757-688-8180
-Original Message-
From: Roger Deschner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
What a FASCINATING data point!
I think t
Specialist
Naptheon Inc.
757-688-8180
-Original Message-
From: Adolph Kahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
You are correct the at 3:1 compression you will not do better than
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
Daniel,
>
> Hi Eliza
>
> As I understand it, each "tape-HBA" has 3 3590E FC connnected to it.
The
> two 21G database disks, are each connected to it
On maandag, september 2, 2002, at 11:26 , Daniel Sparrman wrote:
> Hi
>
> The large disks you are talking about, are you meaning large as 36GB,
> 72GB
> an so on, or are you talking about LUN-sizes?
>
Disk size, 72 GB or so
> In a shark, you can have very large LUN:s, but they will consist
Remco Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2002-09-02 10:48
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a
t; Exist i Stockholm AB
> Propellervägen 6B
> 183 62 HÄGERNÄS
> Växel: 08 - 754 98 00
> Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51
>
>
>
>
> Remco Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2002-09-02 10:48
> Pl
On zaterdag, augustus 31, 2002, at 05:18 , Eliza Lau wrote:
> I recently moved the 36G TSM database and 10G log from attached SCSI
> disk
> drives to a SAN. Backing the db now takes twice as long as it used to
> (from 40 minutes to 90 minutes). The old
> attached disk drives are non-RAID and TSM
>
> Paul D. Seay, Jr.
> Technical Specialist
> Naptheon Inc.
> 757-688-8180
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Deschner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backup performance with
Message-
From: Roger Deschner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
What a FASCINATING data point!
I think the problem is simply that it is RAID5. The WDSF/ADSM/TSM/ITSM
Database is
What a FASCINATING data point!
I think the problem is simply that it is RAID5. The WDSF/ADSM/TSM/ITSM
Database is accessed rather randomly during both normal operations, and
during database backup. RAID5 is optimized for sequential I/O
operations. It's great for things like conventional email sys
: Eliza Lau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: backup performance with db and log on a SAN
I recently moved the 36G TSM database and 10G log from attached SCSI disk
drives to a SAN. Backing the db now takes twice as long as it used to
I recently moved the 36G TSM database and 10G log from attached SCSI disk
drives to a SAN. Backing the db now takes twice as long as it used to
(from 40 minutes to 90 minutes). The old
attached disk drives are non-RAID and TSM mirrored. The SAN drives are
RAID-5 and TSM mirrored. I know I have
20 matches
Mail list logo
