Using sequential-access File volumes with TSM seems to result in a lot of file level fragmentation. We are doing a mini-pilot with 25GB File volumes for the storage pool volumes for some nodes. These volumes end up very fragmented (some of the files are in 9000 fragments).
This could have performance implications. Tivoli may be looking at this for futures? A VTL may address this. I did a quick restore test of a node as follows: 36 GB restored 219,170 objects On fragmented File Volumes: Time 34.6 minutes 17.7 MB/sec After defragmenting the file Volumes: Time 21.9 minutes 27.9 MB/sec It was not a controlled test as it was run on a production server so there could have been other things affecting the two tests. TSM Server 5.2.2.4 on Windows 2003 TSM Client 5.2.2.9 on Windows 2003 Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -----Original Message----- From: Tab Trepagnier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 16, 2004 8:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tier'ed library Milton, Thanks for the info. I briefly looked at Sepaton, but I had no idea they were that inexpensive. I will probably give them a second look. But one thing that I'm struggling with is "why a VTL?" Between random-access DISK volumes and sequential-access FILE volumes what does a VTL buy me that I couldn't implement using those two volume types in TSM? Thanks. Tab Trepagnier TSM Administrator Laitram, L.L.C.
