Rick, I cannot comment on NFS, but have used Data Domain for my primary storage for over 6 years now. My servers run on windows and mount DD using CIFS.
My systems are configured like you describe below; in the backend DD is one large file system but each TSM instance (server) has multiple dedicated directories defined as individual device classes. For example for TSM server 1 the Data Domain file system is laid out: /backups/tsm/s1/aix /backups/tsm/s1/ win /backups/tsm/s1/sql /backups/tsm/s1/db2 Then on TSM server 2: /backups/tsm/s2/aix /backups/tsm/s2/ win /backups/tsm/s2/sql /backups/tsm/s2/db2 Where s1, s2, etc. represents a particular TSM server instance. Individual file device classes and storage pools are defined on each TSM server for each directory, even though in reality there is only one DD file system. This has worked well for me, even when using hundreds and hundreds of mount points from backups, reclaims, migrations, etc. The only thing I had to be careful of was flat-lining the CPU/memory limits of the DD system itself. Hope this helps.... -Rick Adamson -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Rhodes, Richard L. Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:35 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Multiple NFS mounts to same DataDomain Arnaud's discussion on the another thread is SO interesting (Availability for Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software for Linux on power system). It got me thinking of our problems . . . > NFS, whose performance is not that good on AIX systems Agreed!!! After getting DataDomain system and using NFS we were/are VERY unhappy with the NFS performance. Our Unix admins worked with IBM/AIX support, and finally got an admission that the problem is AIX/NFS using a single TCP socket for all writes. The workaround was to use multiple mount point to the same NFS share and spread writes (somehow) across them. He did this and got higher throughput. So now I'm wondering if we could use multiple NFS mounts to the same DD for our file device pools. aix: /DD/tsm1/mnt1 dd: /data/col1/tsm1/mnt1 /DD/tsm1/mnt2 /data/col1/tsm1/mnt2 /DD/tsm1/mnt3 /data/col1/tsm1/mnt2 Then use multiple dir's for the file device devclass: define devclass DDFILEDEV devtype=file dir=/DD/tsm1/mnt1,/DD/tsm1/mnt2,/DD/tsm1/mnt3 According to the link to dsmISI again, TSM will roughly balance across the multiple mount points, hopefully giving better write throughput. I've been VERY reluctant to try this since it appears once you add a dir to a file device devclass, it's there forever! I'm curious if anyone is doing this. Rick -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of PAC Brion Arnaud Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:57 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: *EXTERNAL* Re: Availability for Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software for Linux on power system Hi Zoltan, Many reasons for it, which I'll try to shortly summarize : 1) Isilon makes use of NFS, whose performance is not that good on AIX systems. We are an AIX shop, and are forced to move to Power Linux machines to get sufficient performance to cover our backup needs. Our first experience with Power Linux machines revealed serious lacks in the functionalities we are accustomed to : no easy HMC setup, thus lack of call home capabilities so far. In addition to this we needed to setup a RedHat satellite server to allow for installation on remote servers, and so far are unable to boot our machines from it ... This will probably work sooner or later, but requires lots of involvement and time from our sys-admins. 2) Isilon is not perfectly fitting in a big TSM environment. In order to get decent performance, a third party tool will be needed, whose name is dsmISI. See following : https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stefanradtke.blogspot.ch_2015_06_how-2Dto-2Doptimize-2Dtsm-2Doperations-2Dwith.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=AzgFQeXLLKhxSQaoFCm29A&r=uJG3UnPaeoz9naeIzbwWFddVED8ETOYHxjoACoofi2Y&m=ceqoly0N1xdMkzC6J2TGqdvDLzG9yKYM_kL2dEIbKXE&s=jsLuA3uyleSJqx2Oeqd7Ei16GvZUAg8ffr282jWfKPw&e= This means another layer of complexity in the setup, and another vendor to talk to, if facing performance issues. I had more than my lot of "ping-pong" games during my career as TSM administrator, between IBM and other vendors, to reject the responsibility on each other in case of issues. Having 3 parties involved in our setup will make such games even more frequent ... 3) User base for such a combination in Switzerland is inexistent, at least in the same order of size than ours. EMC has not been able to provide any customer reference in this country, with whom we could talk to about their setup. There must be a good reason for it ... 4) Compatibility issues : this was more kind of a guts feeling I had, but as usually, it revealed to be true : see the problems I will now be facing with Little/Big endian versions of TSM/Spectrum Protect (without to mention that Spectrum Protect 8.1 is not even available for Power Linux so far). I'm currently facing another one : the Isilon we got is running OneFS 8, and there's so far no official statement that it is supported, whether by TSM or by dsmISI. A downgrade to OneFS 7.x revealed to be impossible, due to the fact that the 8 TB disks installed in the machine are not supporting it ... 5) Support by EMC : revealed to be less efficient than the one offered by IBM. Since EMC merged with Dell, it became even worse (for a non-native English speaking person, having a call with support based in India is a nightmare). Also our storage administrator informed me that from his experience, upgrade procedures on EMC devices where much more complicated than the ones for IBM hardware, and almost always required intervention of the vendor to be conducted properly (lots of dependencies in microcodes, switch versions and so on ...) 6) Costs ... Of course, your mileage may vary, but in our case I'm pretty sure that management made the wrong choice (I would have gone IBM Spectrum Scale in conjunction with an AIX based server : one vendor, blueprints provided, and guaranteed performance). Cheers. Arnaud -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Availability for Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software for Linux on power system Arnaud, On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, PAC Brion Arnaud < arnaud.br...@panalpina.com> wrote: > because our management (despite my warnings not to do so) decided that > the target storage for backups would be an EMC Isilon, that connects > to the TSM server using NFS mounts. A little off topic for this thread but why do you feel it is a "bad idea" to use EMC Isilon for TSM target storage for backups? We are leaning in this direction and in fact have such a configuration for our offsite replication target server. We are aggressively moving away from expensive VNX storage to Isilon. So I am curious why you feel the way you do? -- *Zoltan Forray* Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator Xymon Monitor Administrator VMware Administrator (in training) Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services www.ucc.vcu.edu zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__infosecurity.vcu.edu_phishing.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=AzgFQeXLLKhxSQaoFCm29A&r=uJG3UnPaeoz9naeIzbwWFddVED8ETOYHxjoACoofi2Y&m=ceqoly0N1xdMkzC6J2TGqdvDLzG9yKYM_kL2dEIbKXE&s=eMUkLI4e7TjBKiNpwMH9f411dIfF8aGStjBjCDRrGUQ&e= ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
