Thanks Michael, so the use of the filepool storagepool type does not set the O_SYNC flag (and therefor uses the cache on the raid controller) but a normal diskpool does (and therefor doesn't use the cache)?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Michael Prix <m...@rs6000.darktech.org>wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > I assume with diskpool you mean primary pools devicetype disk. > Create a filepool on the internal disks and measure performance against it. > If this is as expected, the internal RAID-controller honors the > O_SYNC-writes TSM uses for diskpools and in this case the cache of the > RAID-controller is not used. > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards > > Michael Prix > > > On 02/11/2013 11:08 AM, Stefan Folkerts wrote: > >> Hi Chavdar, >> >> If it would be the raidcontroller I would expect a CIFS copy to be slow as >> well but it is not, a LAN based CIFS copy to the same disk the diskpool is >> on is fast, the disk is only slow when using it with TSM. >> >> Regards, >> Stefan >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chavdar Cholev <chavdar.cho...@gmail.com >> >**wrote: >> >> Hi Stefan, >>> if it is HP server check to you have cache battery on RAID (if any) I >>> had simmilar issue, when I do backup form disk to LTO it was ~80-90 >>> MB/s, but when nodes baked up to this disk stg it was ~8-10 MB/s even >>> I have etherchannel 2x1Gbps ... >>> Regards >>> Chavdar >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Folkerts >>> <stefan.folke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am running into a strange performance issue at a small TSM site. >>>> They have an new intel based TSM server running Windows 2008 R2 running >>>> >>> TSM >>> >>>> 5.5 (don't ask) with enough CPU and memory to run the server 4 times >>>> >>> over. >>> >>>> It has 2 disks in raid 1 for the TSM log, 4 disks in raid 10 for the TSM >>>> database and 5 disks (all 10k) for the diskpool in raid 5. >>>> The server has 2 1Gb/s ethernet ports in a 2Gb/s LACP channel. >>>> >>>> A normal CIFS copy to the server raid 5 filesystem loads the interface >>>> up >>>> to 25%. >>>> A TSM backup to LTO (I believe LTO4) loads the interface up to about the >>>> same load. >>>> However a TSM backup to the diskpool only get the load up to 5-6%. >>>> I have tried a default dsmserv.opt and dsm.opt and 'tuned' ones. >>>> Multiple clients or just one, MSSQL or fileserver data, nothing matters, >>>> >>> as >>> >>>> soon as I go to the diskpool the performance is gone. >>>> >>>> Even a local backup to 127.0.0.1 is slow to the diskpool but fast to >>>> >>> tape. >>> >>>> I did filesystem checks, recreated the filesystem, swapped the >>>> raidcontroller (that was done before performance checks and seems a bit >>>> silly now) but I can't find the issue. >>>> There are no errors in Windows or TSM, everything is just fine but very >>>> very slow. >>>> I recreated the diskpool volumes one by one to make sure there is no >>>> >>> weird >>> >>>> fragmentation going on, that didn't change anything, even with a single >>>> 1Gb/s connection the speed is still many times faster to tape than it is >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> the diskpool but a filecopy via CIFS to the same disk is fast. >>>> >>>> Has anybody ever seen this before? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>