> Interesting... That hasn't been my experience at all. I recently migrated > from ADSM/VM to TSM on zLinux and didn't see a significant difference in > MIPs consumption.
It also seems to be related to the number (and complexity) of the clients. There is a floor value of resource consumption with TSM that's unavoidable; the resource consumption increases sharply as you get more complex devices or start ramping up the number and complexity of clients. The difference between the straight backup/archive clients and the application-specific ones also plays a big role (the Exchange and Notes clients are particularly piggy both on the server and the client side; in all fairness, they have to do a lot more than the B/A client). The CMS version scaled much more linearly; there was an increase as things ramped up, but it was much slower, and the difference between the B/A and app clients was much smaller. Supporting a 12,000 client install on the VM version was doable. No chance with the Linux version. In the two sites we deal with who use TSM on Linux, it runs on average about 250% of the resource consumption of a comparable size Bacula installation, and cost them about 300% more than the support for Bacula (if we include the requirement for new tape libraries, etc, the cost is even higher). I'm not sure why those two sites do it... If I ever get enough time to finish the CMS Bacula client... *sigh*. Someday. -- db
