Thanks Richard, et al, I thought the default RESOURCEUTIL was also the minimal value, so I don't think we could lower that any more than it already is. Using MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP is a good idea, as is using 'nice' to deprioritize.
We have actually been working hard to improve TSM performance so that we can restore data more quickly. Seems that every action has some re-action. Reducing the TSM Server as a bottleneck serves to move the bottleneck to the client, where it can interfere with other applications. ..Paul At 02:37 PM 4/25/2006, Richard Sims wrote:
Certainly, "de-tuning" the TSM backups will reduce the impact, where the most obvious tactic is to minimize RESOURceutilization. And you can get more drastic via MEMORYEFficientbackup Yes. Depending upon the file population, the influx of the Active files list at the beginning of an incremental will always have a "fixed" impact. Beyond that, you can deprioritize the TSM client process at the OS level.
-- Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757 Manager, Storage Systems Fx: 607-255-8521 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]