We are running on what we call a baby mainframe - Multiprise 3000 - utilizing the internal adapter. Some basic ftp testing does show us that this is not exactly stellar performance on throughput. But our basic issue here is that we are getting some very different performance levels when dealing with restore commands. Perhaps a further clarification from our ongoing testing would be to say that we are seeing very dramatically different restore results from entering restore commands either through the gui or command line when we have booted from an alternate partition on the NT client. It is dramatically worse performance from the alternate partition. But this is what we would anticipate having to do if we lost the client machine entirely. And so far, this is really unacceptable results. There must be something very different in the processing of the restore when a path is specified for the restore as opposed to choosing the "put it back where it came from" option. Any suggestions for us? Thanks for any help you can offer.
-----Original Message----- From: Christo Heuër [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: NT client restore C drive Hi Bev, You said you are running 10/100 Ethernet network - I presume this is on the NT machine. What is the interface into the TSM server like (What networking hardware are you using attaching your OS/390 system to the rest of the IP network?) As a start - do a ftp from your client on NT to the OS/390 box. This will eliminate any TSM related tuning that you can do. Even on a default config running via a 3172 controller(16M T/Ring), we get better performance than you are getting. (About four times better than what you are seeing on your D drive restore....) The FTP will indicate if the network can pump the data fast enough. The second thing is look at your cache hit statistics on the server via the q db f=d command - your cache hit must be above 98% - if not you are experiencing memory problems on the TSM server side of things - this will definately affect the speed at which you are restoring files - especially if you move a lot of small files. Let me know how it goes. Regards Christo Heuer ABSA Bank Johannesburg SOUTH AFRICA > Thanks for the suggestion but there are no tapes involved. This is a test > environment still and we are only going to dasd on the mainframe server. > > On a bare bones restore of a Windows NT client's C drive, we are getting > very poor throughput times. For example, it is taking an hour and a half to > restore 200 MB. Restoring the D drive is much better - 4 minutes for 50 MB. > We have release 4.1, a 10/100 Ethernet network, OS/390 TSM server, and we > are booting off an alternate partition on the NT client to restore the C > drive. > Why would we have such a discrepancy in restore times between the 2 drives? > And is this average performance? We have much larger servers coming up in > our plans and this is not an acceptable timeframe for restores. > TIA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --
