?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data protection, optimized for enterprise multi-mode and host attachment, high-cycle and start/stop intensive tape applications, consider the proven IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Tape Drive 3590 or the IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Automated Tape Library 3494. Are TSM restores and reclamation of aggregated files start/stop intensive? Has anyone done TSM performance comparisons of LTO vs 3590E for: --- - DR or FS restore from (semi-collocated) tapes? - primary (semi-collocated) tape-tape reclamation? Thank you for any experienced advice you will share with us. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693)
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
Jim, few hints: - TSM restores and reclamation for big aggregates are read/seek forward which is not actually start/stop so I think they should not count, but ... restores and reclamation of small files from non-collocated volumes are definitely start/stop intensive. How intensive are for you depends on how semi-collocated your tapes are. TSM aggregation mitigates starts/stops but cannot fully relieve them. With such high number of clients mounts/dismounts prevale starts/stops and you'd better stay with 3590. - some of the servers with big files/databases can go to a stgpool on 3584. LTO shines with big files and is still very good with files over few MB (thanks to TSM's aggregation). Filesystems where aggregation can get 50-100 MB for every TXNGROUPMAX files are just fine. - reaching 5.1.6 on your forthcoming upgrade you can upgrade to 3590H. This would give you 50% more - 1700x10 GB (uncompressed) keeping fast seeks/restores right now. Usage of K cartridges will also increase the capacity without performance degradation. There is no problem to mix J-s and K-s in the library. And for the future - the 1 TB cartridge announced by IBM will definitely go to strengthen 3590 line and I guess this would happen during this year. So the answer to the subject - LTO can't replace 3590! Upgrade slowly and it would be fine. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant James R Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30.01.2003 21:36 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service? ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
Jim, You have a good grasp of the issues and what looks to be an interesting environment. Would it be possible to add complexity to get each drive type to do what its best at? What I'm thinking of is a three level hierarchy disk - 3590 - lto Allow sufficient headroom in your 3590 pool for a day or two of new data, and migrate down in a scheduled fashion as you would a disk storage pool. Because you are semi colocated the migrate should be a reasonably efficient streaming operation. You will also get efficient use of the lto media. If you have enough disk, I'd also consider a disk reclaim storage pool for any LTO primary pool reclaims. Alternatively, you could script a move data of primary LTO volumes back into your primary disk pool and let normal migration do the rest. I've not tried any of this, but I hope the ideas are useful. Steve Harris AIX and TSM Admin Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31/01/2003 5:36:33 ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data protection, optimized for enterprise multi-mode and host attachment, high-cycle and start/stop intensive tape applications, consider the proven IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Tape Drive 3590 or the IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Automated Tape Library 3494. Are TSM restores and reclamation of aggregated files start/stop intensive? Has anyone done TSM performance comparisons of LTO vs 3590E for: --- - DR or FS restore from (semi-collocated) tapes? - primary (semi-collocated) tape-tape reclamation? Thank you for any experienced advice you will share with us. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693)
