Hello Eric,
no, definitely not. TSM-Instance is responding promptly. When the big DBs
are backung up, there are always the other takeing their backup and every 30
minutes all DBs are performing their archive log backup. So, every second
there is a session open or close, additional traffic by Operation Center,
TSMManager and Nagios. Up to 250 parallel sessions are open in peak times,
nostly only for seconds.
As for expiration speed:
We are expiring ~ 3Mio VMWare objects
~ 5Mio File objects
~ 1Mio SAP objects (Oracle DB)
~ 1300 TDP Oracle Objects
per hour. Benefits of having different LPARs for different traffic, for this
case of trouble. All LPARs are sized the same, modulo slight differences in
CPU and memory, but all are feeling fine.
--
Michael Prix
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 12:21 +0000, Loon, Eric van (ITOP NS) - KLM wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> When you have large databases backing up, do you also experience long
> session initiation times? In my case it takes sometimes 30 to 50 seconds to
> get a prompt with a dsmadmc. Same for each client session.
> We use TDP for SAP (Oracle database), TDP for SAP HANA and TDP for Oracle
> clients. Our default backup piece size is 900 MB, so much smaller than yours
> and even that's causing issues.
>
> Kind regards,
> Eric van Loon
> Air France/KLM Storage & Backup
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Michael Prix
> Sent: maandag 22 juli 2019 13:20
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: deletion performance of large deduplicated files
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> that's exactly what I oberserved too. The moment I moved the big DB's away
> fom the server, the performance raised dramatically.
> Your SAP is on an Oracle-DB, and you are using TDP ERP with RMAN to backup
> up the database?
>
> I ask because we are experimenting with some paramenters in RMAN to keep the
> backup objects small. Small as in 10GB compared to SIZEOF(TABLE), which
> might be up to 10TB. An object bigger that 10GB would be split into 10GB
> fragments by TSM already, according to MAXFRAGMENTSIZE, but this would do no
> good here, because the underlying client-object to be expired is still
> bigger and constitutes the reason for the slow expiration.
> Because of this a lower number wouldn't do any good in the first run, I'm
> still thinking of lowering the parameters involved to smaller values,
> pending the results of the first complete expiration without any bigger
> objects which will be in 2 weeks due to retention rules.
>
> --
> Michael Prix
>
> On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 08:42 +0000, Loon, Eric van (ITOP NS) - KLM wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > We are using Linux server. The server is sized according to the
> > Blueprints (Large server config). We send all our data to the
> > container pool. It's a mix of BA (Linux and Windows), SQL Server, SAP,
> > Oracle and Lotus Notes clients.
> > Like I stated earlier, the performance issue seems to be related to
> > large file clients and especially the deletion of large files. As soon
> > as we remove Oracle and SAP clients away from a bad performing TSM
> > server, performance is improving.
> >
> > Met vriendelijke groeten,
> > Eric van Loon
> > KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Michael Prix
> > Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 17:43
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Subject: Re: deletion performance of large deduplicated files
> >
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > could you describe a bit you server setup?
> > What type of data are you storing? SQL (which), VM, File, ...
> > Is everything going into one dedup pool or are they split for
> > different types of data?
> >
> > I assume your TSM-servers run on AIX.
> >
> > In general, performant backup and restore is no problem with
> > deduplicated storagepools, if done the right way.
> > Housekeeping is a total different pair of shoes.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Prix
> >
> > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 13:35 +0000, Loon, Eric van (ITOP NS) - KLM wrote:
> > > Hi Rick and others!
> > >
> > > I replicated the data of the test TDP client to multiple servers,
> > > running 7.1.7, 7.1.9 and even 8.1.8: the performance sucks on all
> > > servers.
> > > We do not use client replication as part of our server protection.
> > > We need a real time replication over the datacenter and thus we rely
> > > on host-based replication for all our servers. I tested with and
> > > without
> > > replication:
> > > there is no noticeable difference.
> > > As a work-around I will install a non-deduplicated file stgpool on
> > > the worst performing server next week. I expect the server to
> > > perform better as soon as all container pool objects are expired, in
> > > about 3 weeks from now.
> > > In the meantime I will keep on pursuing IBM until it is fixed or
> > > else we might need to replace the product altogether...
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Eric van Loon
> > > Air France/KLM Storage & Backup
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On
> > > Behalf Of Rick Adamson
> > > Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 14:45
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: deletion performance of large deduplicated files
> > >
> > > Eric, Michael,
> > > I have been working through similar struggles and as I read your
> > > posts had to wonder, can you provide some details on your server and
> > > client versions?
> > > Basically I now have experience/exposure to every
> > > version/maintenance pack/patch SP has put out since 7.1.3.x
> > >
> > > My servers are now running on 8.1.8 (windows) and has seemed to
> > > have stabilized (for now).
> > > One thing that was causing me a lot of grief was using directory
> > > storage pools with client side deduplication enabled, particularly
> > > on data protection products (all of them).
> > > Afterwards there was a lot of cleanup; auditing containers,
> > > confirming that protect storage was completing successfully, and
> > > finally doing the same for replicate node processes.
> > >
> > > I found that understandably server performance takes a severe nose
> > > dive if you are trying to process (protect/replicate) damaged
> > > containers, and most likely restores will be compromised as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > -Rick Adamson
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> On Behalf Of
> > > Michael Prix
> > > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 6:11 AM
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] deletion performance of large deduplicated
> > > files
> > >
> > > * This email originated outside of the organization. Use caution
> > > when opening attachments or clicking links. *
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > Hello Eric,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > welcome to my nightmares. Take a seat, wanna have a drink?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I had the pleasure of performance and data corruption PMRs during
> > > the last two
> > >
> > > years with TDP Oracle. Yes, at first the customer got blamed for not
> > > adhering
> > >
> > > completely to to blueprints, but after some weeks it boild down to ...
> > >
> > > silence.
> > >
> > > Data corruption was because of what ended in IT28096 - now fixed.
> > >
> > > Performance is interesting, but resembles to what you have written.
> > > We work
> > >
> > > with MAXPIECESIZE settings on RMAN to keep the backup pieces small
> > > and got
> > >
> > > some interesting values, pending further observation, but we might
> > > be on a
> > >
> > > cheerful way. I'm talking about database sizes of 50TB here,
> > > warehouse style.
> > >
> > > In between we moved the big DBs to a dedicated server to prove
> > > that the
> > >
> > > performance drop is because of the big DBs, and the remaining "small"
> > > DBs -
> > >
> > > size of 500MB up to 5TB - didn't put any measurable stress on the DB
> > > in terms
> > >
> > > of expiration and protect stgpool. Even the big DBs on their
> > > dedicated server
> > >
> > > performed better in terms of expiration and protect stgpool, which
> > > might have
> > >
> > > been a coincidence of these DBs holding nearly the same data and
> > > having the
> > >
> > > same retention period.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What I can't observe is a slowness of the DB. Queries are answered
> > > in the
> > >
> > > normal time - depending on the query. a count(*) from backupobjects
> > > naturally
> > >
> > > takes some time, considerably longer when you use dedup, but the
> > > daily queries
> > >
> > > are answered in the "normal" timeframe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What helped immediately was some tuning:
> > >
> > > - More LUNS and filesystems for the TSM-DB
> > >
> > > - smaller disks, but more of them, for each filesystem.
> > >
> > > changing the disks from 100GB to 2 x 50GB for each DB-filesystem
> > > got me a
> > >
> > > performance boost of 200% in expiration and backup db. Unbelievable,
> > > but true.
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm using SSD. And SVC. And multiple storage systems.
> > > Performance isn't
> > >
> > > the problem, we are measuring 2ms respone time for write AND read.
> > >
> > > - stripeset for each fileset
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Michael Prix
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 07:29 +0000, Loon, Eric van (ITOP NS) - KLM wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi TSM/SP-ers,
> > > > We are struggling with the performance of our TSM servers for
> > > > months now.
> > > > We
> > > > are running several servers with hardware (Data Domain) dedup for
> > > > years without any problems, but on our new servers with directory
> > > > container pools performance is really, really bad.
> > > > The servers and storage are designed according to the Blueprints
> > > > and they are working fine as long as you do not add large database
> > > > (Oracle and SAP) client to them. As soon as you do, the overall
> > > > server performance becomes very bad: client and admin session
> > > > initiation takes 20 to 40 seconds, SQL queries run for minutes
> > > > where they should take a few seconds and q query stgpool sometimes
> > > > takes more than a minute to respond!
> > > > I have two cases open for this. In one case we focused a lot on
> > > > the OS and disk performance, but during that process I noticed
> > > > that the performance is most likely caused by the way TSM
> > > > processes large (few hundred MB) files.
> > > > I
> > > > performed a large amount of tests and came to the conclusion that
> > > > it takes TSM a huge amount of time to delete large deduplicated
> > > > files, both in container pools as deduplicated file pools. As test
> > > > I use an TDP for Oracle client which uses a backup piece size of
> > > > 900 MB. The client contains about
> > > > 5000 files. Deleting the files from a container pool takes more
> > > > than an hour. When you run a delete object for the files
> > > > individually I see that most files take more than a second(!) to
> > > > delete. If I put that same data in a non-deduplicated file pool, a
> > > > delete filespace takes about 15 seconds...
> > > > The main issue is that the TDP clients are doing the exact same
> > > > thing: as soon as a backup file is no longer needed, it's removed
> > > > from the RMAN catalog and deleted from TSM. Since we have several
> > > > huge database clients (multiple TB's each) these Oracle delete
> > > > jobs tend to run for hours. These delete jobs also seem to slow
> > > > down each other, because when there are several of those jobs
> > > > running at the same time, they become even more slow.
> > > > At this point I have one server where these jobs are running 24
> > > > hours per day! This server is at the moment the worst performing
> > > > TSM server I have ever seen. On the other container pool servers I
> > > > was able to move the Oracle and SAP server away to the old servers
> > > > (the ones with the Data Domain), but on this one I can't because
> > > > of Data Domain capacity reasons.
> > > > For this file deletion performance I also have a case open, but
> > > > there is absolutely no progress. I proved IBM how bad the
> > > > performance is and I even offered them a copy of our database so
> > > > they can see for themselves, but only silence from development...
> > > > One thing I do not understand: I find it very hard to believe that
> > > > we are the only one suffering from this issue. There must be
> > > > dozens of TSM users out there that backup large databases to TSM
> > > > container pools?
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Eric van Loon
> > > > Air France/KLM Storage & Backup
> > > > ********************************************************
> > > > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.klm.com&d=
> > > > Dw
> > > > ICaQ&c=AzgFQeXLLKhxSQaoFCm29A&r=eqh5PzQPIsPArLoI_uV1mKvhIpcNP1MsCl
> > > > DP
> > > > SJjFfxw&m=OAsoTBlnuy-Km69JdbqTRXQFPP3_U4a9gj4CSO0lbFw&s=MSJs-FT5ZG
> > > > _G gtiqMOCzRHNo0Bw0PiD3C7-s_xuNgBg&e= . This e-mail and any
> > > > attachment may contain confidential and privileged material
> > > > intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you
> > > > are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be
> > > > disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action
> > > > related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and
> > > > may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please
> > > > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this
> > > > message.
> > > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries
> > > > and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or
> > > > incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor
> > > > responsible for any delay in receipt.
> > > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > > > Dutch
> > > > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > > > registered number 33014286
> > > > ********************************************************
> > >
> > > **CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE** This electronic message contains
> > > information from Southeastern Grocers, Inc and is intended only for
> > > the use of the addressee.
> > > This message may contain information that is privileged,
> > > confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable Law.
> > > This message may not be read, used, distributed, forwarded,
> > > reproduced or stored by any other than the intended recipient. If
> > > you are not the intended recipient, please delete and notify the sender.
> > > ********************************************************
> > > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > > http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> > > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only.
> > > If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the
> > > e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed,
> > > and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is
> > > strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this
> > > e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return
> > > e-mail, and delete this message.
> > >
> > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries
> > > and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or
> > > incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor
> > > responsible for any delay in receipt.
> > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > > Dutch
> > > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > > registered number 33014286
> > > ********************************************************
> > ********************************************************
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only.
> > If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the
> > e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and
> > that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
> > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete
> > this message.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or
> > its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any
> > delay in receipt.
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch
> > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> > ********************************************************
> ********************************************************
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential
> and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may
> be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to
> this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If
> you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately
> by return e-mail, and delete this message.
>
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its
> employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission
> of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch
> Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered
> number 33014286
> ********************************************************
