TSM STUDIO for monitoring and reports

Hello, I check TSM STUDIO for monitoring and reports . Do anybody use it? Is it good tool? Thank You hana _ Hana Shparber (Darzi) Computation Center, Ben-Gurion University Email: ha...@bgu.ac.il Phone: 972-8-6461160, Mobile: 9

Re: TSM STUDIO for monitoring and reports

I would rather check out www.tsmmanager.com I use this product for the last 3 years and it is really good. You can down load trial for a month.. Looked at TSM studio. Just as bulky and cumbersome as IBM's attempts at reporting.. Don't know when IBM will ever attempt to get the reporting side of T

Ang: Re: TSM STUDIO for monitoring and reports

Or, if you want to be able to access your TSM monitoring from anywhere in the world, while still allowing the collection of historical data, granular analysis and a nice interface both for reporting and operation: http://www.debriefingsoftware.com/ I've worked with TSM Manager, ServerGraph and

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

Speaking of this book, I found the paragraph titled: Mitigating performance degradation when backing up or archiving to FILE volumes Yes, I did follow their recommendations plus other recommendations for transfer of data to high-performance (TS1130) tape drives. Didn't see much if any differe

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

Zoltan, Is your database/logs on separate disks and separate HBAs from your filedevclass disks and are the disk HBAs separate from tape HBAs? Neil Strand Storage Engineer - Legg Mason Baltimore, MD. (410) 580-7491 Whatever you can do or believe you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power a

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

Correct. This machine has 8-internal 600GB 15K drives. The OS and DB are on one pair of mirrored drives. The log and archlog share the rest of the internal drives in a raid-10 (I think) array plus leaving extra space to DB expansion (one server I plan to migrate to these new 6.2 servers has

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

In reference to these recommendations, this is what one of my SAN folks said: If "increasing the queue depth for the individual disks" is something you can do on a CLARiiON, it's not something I'm familiar with. On the HBA (and if you can), you would do that from the host side (like with SanSurfe

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

for AIX: lsattr -l hdiskX -> look foor the queue_depth field values between 20 and 64 make sense, 128 in some extreme cases chdev -l hdiskX -a queue_depth=Y (but only if the vg is off-line) I found that some drives only support a queue_depth of 1... in that case, you found your bottleneck. On

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

This is RedHat Linux 5.5 From: Remco Post To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 10/21/2010 01:24 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" for AIX: lsattr -l hdiskX -> look foor the queue_depth field values be

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

There should be queue depth settings for individual disks and for the HBA on the server - not on the Array. The sum of the Disk settings should not exceed the setting for the HBA. By EMC voodoo I meant the EMC management application that allows you to monitor the performance of the array - I'm no

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

Hi all, YMMV, I've really never played with these, but check /sys/block/sdX/queue/nr_requests and some other files in that dir ow BTW, google is your friend ;-) On 21 okt 2010, at 19:38, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > This is RedHat Linux 5.5 > > > > From: > Remco Post > To: > ADSM-L@VM.MAR

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

Thanks for the hint...using Google is great (which I do), but if you don't have a clue what to look forlike a dictionary--you have to have some kind of clue/general idea how a word is spelled to be able to look it up ;) I did find a /sys/block/emcpowerb/queue/nr_requests file with

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

On 21 okt 2010, at 20:58, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > Thanks for the hint...using Google is great (which I do), but if you > don't have a clue what to look forlike a dictionary--you have to > have some kind of clue/general idea how a word is spelled to be able to > look it up ;)

Re: Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage

>Correct.  This machine has 8-internal 600GB 15K drives.  The OS and DB are >on one pair of mirrored drives.  The log  and archlog share the rest of >the internal drives in a raid-10 (I think) array plus leaving extra space >to DB expansion (one server I plan to migrate to these new 6.2 servers ha

AUTO: Alexander Heindl/IT/IM/EAG/AT ist außer Haus. (Rückkehr am 27.10.2010)

Ich bin bis 27.10.2010 abwesend. Gerne werde ich Ihre Nachricht nach meiner Rückkehr beantworten. Alexander Heindl Hinweis: Dies ist eine automatische Antwort auf Ihre Nachricht "Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage" gesendet am 22.10.2010 03:35

Re: Copypool storage pool questions

Thanks for the reply but one thing I am still confused about are these copypool tapes sitting in my onsite tape library. Given that the primary reason for this copypool is for offsite tapes, should these copypool tapes currently residing in my tape library (created by reclaimation processes) be

Re: Copypool storage pool questions

Think of it this way Paul. (and please excuse me if I pitch this at too low a level) You are trying to create an offsite point of consistency every day. So, you run your backups overnight, then copy the data to your copypool. At this point you should create a DB backup - I prefer to use the cla