Just one point to add to that - with the DS4x00 series storage arrays you only have one preferred controller active at a time per LUN - so if you split the db into two LUNs you have the option to have each LUN running across a separate controller, with I/O performance gains as a result. If you'd even notice the difference is another matter ;)
----- "Richard Rhodes" <rrho...@firstenergycorp.com> wrote: > From: "Richard Rhodes" <rrho...@firstenergycorp.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Sent: Friday, 19 February, 2010 9:28:45 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM upgrade v5 --> v6 database storage question > > Easy answer . . . "it depends" . . . > > Here are some questions/comments in no particular order: > > Are you on an array today? > Is the array busy and loaded down? > Does it have multiple raidsets? > What kind of drives does it have (sata, fc10k, fc15k)? > I'm not a windows admin - would the drive letters be separate luns? > If separate luns, would you put them on separate raidsets? > If multiple luns but all on the same raidset, then you are basically > gaining a cmd queue for each lun. > If separate luns and you can put them on separate raidsets, then you > are > getting many more HDD's working for you. > Are you disk I/O bound now? If not, then you probably won't see much > difference on matter what you do. > The big advantage of the array is I/O spread across multiple/many > spindles > and write-back cache. > If you were using a unix system, I'd say to allocate one lun per > raidset, > bring them into a volume group, and create filesystems striped across > the > luns. That's how we do everything. > > rick > > > > > > > Nicholas > Rodolfich > <nrodolf...@cmaon > To > THEWEB.COM> ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Sent by: "ADSM: > cc > Dist Stor > Manager" > Subject > <ads...@vm.marist TSM upgrade v5 --> v6 database > .EDU> storage question > > > 02/18/2010 02:39 > PM > > > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor > Manager" > <ads...@vm.marist > .EDU> > > > > > > > Hello All, > > Thanks for your help! > > Upgrading a client on Windows 2003 TSM v5.5.3 to Windows 2008 TSM > 6.1.3. I > am planning the storage and was wondering if it is worth splitting > the > database between multiple file systems. The storage they have for the > database is FCAL on an IBM DS4800. The client's current database is > 65GB > and will probably reduce to 55GB after the upgrade when we purge some > old > data. I was going to do the following > > e:\ database directory > f:\ active log directory > g:\ archive log directory. > > I could do this > > e:\ database directory > f:\ database directory > g:\ database directory > h:\ active log directory > i:\ archive log directory. > > The storage will be all be RAIDed on the DS4800 so I am wondering just > how > much if any performance gains I will see if I split the database up > into > more file systems. I would also like to solicit any opinions on the > storage > configuration (i.e. - RAID?, placement of logs, etc) > > Thanks, > > Nicholas > > ----------------------------------------- > 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.