Re: Performance again!!!
Also, backup requires alot of db interaction (insert, commit, calculate/build file aggregates, etc.), whereas migration just moves from disk pool to tape... so, migration of 350 MB should be much faster -- notwithstanding tape mount and positioning (which, for DLT, can be several minutes). Don France Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant San Jose, Ca (408) 257-3037 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Professional Association of Contract Employees (P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com) -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Zlatko Krastev Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Performance again!!! Backup direct to tape involves the communications. Migration is purely server process. So its check can eliminate some TCP bottlenecks (if any). For local client there should be no big difference. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Performance again!!! Hello, we didn't try that one ... Is there any reason for the migration from disk to tape to be faster than backup from disk to tape? thx Sandra --- Zlatko Krastev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long does the migration to tape take after backup to disk? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Re: Bad performance... again
Thanks for that David, To increase the cache-hit percentage you will need to shutdown TSM. Backup and edit BUFPOOLSIZE in dsmserv.opt and restart the TSM server. It's probably worth going through an unloaddb and reload of the database also to improve performance. We're looking at doing this as a quarterly procedure. BUFPOOLSIZE refers to virtual memory, default is probably 4096. There is a table in the Admin Guide which recommends increases in BUFPOOLSIZE according to system memory. I'd recommend being a bit conservative and grow it a bit at a time performing a q options and q db f=d to see what's going on with BUFPOOLSIZE in relation to cache-hits. You obviously don't want to use up virtual-memory at peak load times. Mike. -Original Message- From: David Longo [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bad performance... again Well, I'll take a few shots. 1. Network - Have you tried some FTP or similar tests at OS level between TSM server and clients to see if Network performance is o.k.? 2. Your Atape driver is WAY behind. 3. Drive microcode on 3584 is behind (Not as far as Atape though). 4. There were some noticeable performance problems on AIX (I think somewhere between ML08 and 09. I think they were all fixed at 09). 5. On TSM server, what is the cache hit percent output of q db f=d? If it is much less that 98%, the cache needs to be increased. This can effect a lot of TSM server ops. 5. You didn't mention how long this server has been in operation - was it working fine at one point and went downhill? Also what Disk you have on TSM server and how setup? David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/02 10:50AM Hi everybody, I know this is a subject that comes very often, and that various answers were already give, but, after searching through the list archives, I am still not totally sure of what I should do: I have a TSM Server that does his backups not quite fast. First, I thought of a network problem, but it is a dedicated backup network running at 1Gb/s and I only get backups at 10GB/hour. And, the internal server operations (reclamation, backup stgpool) are also slow. Right now, I am looking at the console a backup stg process which is running for almost 2 hours and has backed up only 38GB. It is a new pool, so there is no time spent searching the new files, and all the data came from one volume. My setup is: TSM Server 4.2.0.0 (Client wants to upgrade to 5.1) AIX 4.3.3 ML9 on an F80 with 2 CPUs ATAPE 5.4.2.0 Storage is: IBM3584 with 6 IBM LTO drives. Microcode level is 16E0 The site belongs to a customer who doesn t like very much applying patches. Should I try to convince him to upgrade TSM/ATAPE/Microcode? Or is there anther issue? Thank you in advance for your attencion Paul van Dongen MMS health-first.org made the following annotations on 06/13/02 21:31:29 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. == ** Bunnings Legal Disclaimer: 1) This document is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return email and delete the document. 2) All e-mails sent to and sent from Bunnings Building Supplies are scanned for content. Any material deemed to contain inappropriate subject matter will be reported to the e-mail administrator of all parties concerned. **
Re: Bad performance... again
No, you don't need to shutdown TSM to change this. It can be dynamically changed with the SETOPT command! David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/14/02 01:35AM Thanks for that David, To increase the cache-hit percentage you will need to shutdown TSM. Backup and edit BUFPOOLSIZE in dsmserv.opt and restart the TSM server. It's probably worth going through an unloaddb and reload of the database also to improve performance. We're looking at doing this as a quarterly procedure. BUFPOOLSIZE refers to virtual memory, default is probably 4096. There is a table in the Admin Guide which recommends increases in BUFPOOLSIZE according to system memory. I'd recommend being a bit conservative and grow it a bit at a time performing a q options and q db f=d to see what's going on with BUFPOOLSIZE in relation to cache-hits. You obviously don't want to use up virtual-memory at peak load times. Mike. -Original Message- From: David Longo [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bad performance... again Well, I'll take a few shots. 1. Network - Have you tried some FTP or similar tests at OS level between TSM server and clients to see if Network performance is o.k.? 2. Your Atape driver is WAY behind. 3. Drive microcode on 3584 is behind (Not as far as Atape though). 4. There were some noticeable performance problems on AIX (I think somewhere between ML08 and 09. I think they were all fixed at 09). 5. On TSM server, what is the cache hit percent output of q db f=d? If it is much less that 98%, the cache needs to be increased. This can effect a lot of TSM server ops. 5. You didn't mention how long this server has been in operation - was it working fine at one point and went downhill? Also what Disk you have on TSM server and how setup? David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/02 10:50AM Hi everybody, I know this is a subject that comes very often, and that various answers were already give, but, after searching through the list archives, I am still not totally sure of what I should do: I have a TSM Server that does his backups not quite fast. First, I thought of a network problem, but it is a dedicated backup network running at 1Gb/s and I only get backups at 10GB/hour. And, the internal server operations (reclamation, backup stgpool) are also slow. Right now, I am looking at the console a backup stg process which is running for almost 2 hours and has backed up only 38GB. It is a new pool, so there is no time spent searching the new files, and all the data came from one volume. My setup is: TSM Server 4.2.0.0 (Client wants to upgrade to 5.1) AIX 4.3.3 ML9 on an F80 with 2 CPUs ATAPE 5.4.2.0 Storage is: IBM3584 with 6 IBM LTO drives. Microcode level is 16E0 The site belongs to a customer who doesn t like very much applying patches. Should I try to convince him to upgrade TSM/ATAPE/Microcode? Or is there anther issue? Thank you in advance for your attencion Paul van Dongen MMS health-first.org made the following annotations on 06/13/02 21:31:29 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. == ** Bunnings Legal Disclaimer: 1) This document is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return email and delete the document. 2) All e-mails sent to and sent from Bunnings Building Supplies are scanned for content. Any material deemed to contain inappropriate subject matter will be reported to the e-mail administrator of all parties concerned. ** MMS
Re: Bad performance... again
Hello, The BUFFPOOLSIZE can only be 1/2 the real memory you are using. If you stop the server and make the change and set too high a number for the buffpool then your server will generate an error and not start. Its ok though, just make the needed adjustment and start your server again. Mark David Longo wrote: No, you don't need to shutdown TSM to change this. It can be dynamically changed with the SETOPT command! David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/14/02 01:35AM Thanks for that David, To increase the cache-hit percentage you will need to shutdown TSM. Backup and edit BUFPOOLSIZE in dsmserv.opt and restart the TSM server. It's probably worth going through an unloaddb and reload of the database also to improve performance. We're looking at doing this as a quarterly procedure. BUFPOOLSIZE refers to virtual memory, default is probably 4096. There is a table in the Admin Guide which recommends increases in BUFPOOLSIZE according to system memory. I'd recommend being a bit conservative and grow it a bit at a time performing a q options and q db f=d to see what's going on with BUFPOOLSIZE in relation to cache-hits. You obviously don't want to use up virtual-memory at peak load times. Mike. -Original Message- From: David Longo [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bad performance... again Well, I'll take a few shots. 1. Network - Have you tried some FTP or similar tests at OS level between TSM server and clients to see if Network performance is o.k.? 2. Your Atape driver is WAY behind. 3. Drive microcode on 3584 is behind (Not as far as Atape though). 4. There were some noticeable performance problems on AIX (I think somewhere between ML08 and 09. I think they were all fixed at 09). 5. On TSM server, what is the cache hit percent output of q db f=d? If it is much less that 98%, the cache needs to be increased. This can effect a lot of TSM server ops. 5. You didn't mention how long this server has been in operation - was it working fine at one point and went downhill? Also what Disk you have on TSM server and how setup? David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/02 10:50AM Hi everybody, I know this is a subject that comes very often, and that various answers were already give, but, after searching through the list archives, I am still not totally sure of what I should do: I have a TSM Server that does his backups not quite fast. First, I thought of a network problem, but it is a dedicated backup network running at 1Gb/s and I only get backups at 10GB/hour. And, the internal server operations (reclamation, backup stgpool) are also slow. Right now, I am looking at the console a backup stg process which is running for almost 2 hours and has backed up only 38GB. It is a new pool, so there is no time spent searching the new files, and all the data came from one volume. My setup is: TSM Server 4.2.0.0 (Client wants to upgrade to 5.1) AIX 4.3.3 ML9 on an F80 with 2 CPUs ATAPE 5.4.2.0 Storage is: IBM3584 with 6 IBM LTO drives. Microcode level is 16E0 The site belongs to a customer who doesn t like very much applying patches. Should I try to convince him to upgrade TSM/ATAPE/Microcode? Or is there anther issue? Thank you in advance for your attencion Paul van Dongen MMS health-first.org made the following annotations on 06/13/02 21:31:29 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. == ** Bunnings Legal Disclaimer: 1) This document is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received
Re: Bad performance... again
-- The site belongs to a customer who doesn´t like very much applying patches. You can apply *maintenance* not a patch by installing 4.2.2.0. You can point to the customer that he/she does not stay at AIX 4.3.0 but is using 4.3.3 to get *improvements*. -- 4. There were some noticeable performance problems on AIX (I think somewhere between ML08 and 09. I think they were all fixed at 09). Actually somewhere between ML9 and ML10 :-) There was nice memory leak problem in ML9 plus some others *directly* affecting TSM performance. Thus you have to upgrade at least: bos.mp bos.rte.libc bos.rte.libpthreads bos.net.tcp.client bos.net.tcp.server ML10 seems good up to now. Look at post made by Thomas Rupp on 10.04.2002 on thread Big Performance Problem after upgrading from AIX TSM Client 4.1 to 4.2. I've learned this hard way but not with TSM :-) -- To increase the cache-hit percentage you will need to shutdown TSM. WRONG! Just use 'setopt bufpoolsize new value'. This also *appends* a option line in dsmserv.opt but does not remove the old one. So you can clean up a bit. It is better to issue also 'reset bufpool' to clear stats and to get correct DB cache hit %. If we talk about LOGPOOLSIZE then yes, you have to change option and restart the TSM server. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Bad performance... again Thanks for that David, To increase the cache-hit percentage you will need to shutdown TSM. Backup and edit BUFPOOLSIZE in dsmserv.opt and restart the TSM server. It's probably worth going through an unloaddb and reload of the database also to improve performance. We're looking at doing this as a quarterly procedure. BUFPOOLSIZE refers to virtual memory, default is probably 4096. There is a table in the Admin Guide which recommends increases in BUFPOOLSIZE according to system memory. I'd recommend being a bit conservative and grow it a bit at a time performing a q options and q db f=d to see what's going on with BUFPOOLSIZE in relation to cache-hits. You obviously don't want to use up virtual-memory at peak load times. Mike. -Original Message- From: David Longo [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bad performance... again Well, I'll take a few shots. 1. Network - Have you tried some FTP or similar tests at OS level between TSM server and clients to see if Network performance is o.k.? 2. Your Atape driver is WAY behind. 3. Drive microcode on 3584 is behind (Not as far as Atape though). 4. There were some noticeable performance problems on AIX (I think somewhere between ML08 and 09. I think they were all fixed at 09). 5. On TSM server, what is the cache hit percent output of q db f=d? If it is much less that 98%, the cache needs to be increased. This can effect a lot of TSM server ops. 5. You didn't mention how long this server has been in operation - was it working fine at one point and went downhill? Also what Disk you have on TSM server and how setup? David Longo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/02 10:50AM Hi everybody, I know this is a subject that comes very often, and that various answers were already give, but, after searching through the list archives, I am still not totally sure of what I should do: I have a TSM Server that does his backups not quite fast. First, I thought of a network problem, but it is a dedicated backup network running at 1Gb/s and I only get backups at 10GB/hour. And, the internal server operations (reclamation, backup stgpool) are also slow. Right now, I am looking at the console a backup stg process which is running for almost 2 hours and has backed up only 38GB. It is a new pool, so there is no time spent searching the new files, and all the data came from one volume. My setup is: TSM Server 4.2.0.0 (Client wants to upgrade to 5.1) AIX 4.3.3 ML9 on an F80 with 2 CPUs ATAPE 5.4.2.0 Storage is: IBM3584 with 6 IBM LTO drives. Microcode level is 16E0 The site belongs to a customer who doesn t like very much applying patches. Should I try to convince him to upgrade TSM/ATAPE/Microcode? Or is there anther issue? Thank you in advance for your attencion Paul van Dongen MMS health-first.org made the following annotations on 06/13/02 21:31:29 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose
Bad performance... again
Hi everybody, I know this is a subject that comes very often, and that various answers were already give, but, after searching through the list archives, I am still not totally sure of what I should do: I have a TSM Server that does his backups not quite fast. First, I thought of a network problem, but it is a dedicated backup network running at 1Gb/s and I only get backups at 10GB/hour. And, the internal server operations (reclamation, backup stgpool) are also slow. Right now, I am looking at the console a backup stg process which is running for almost 2 hours and has backed up only 38GB. It is a new pool, so there is no time spent searching the new files, and all the data came from one volume. My setup is: TSM Server 4.2.0.0 (Client wants to upgrade to 5.1) AIX 4.3.3 ML9 on an F80 with 2 CPUs ATAPE 5.4.2.0 Storage is: IBM3584 with 6 IBM LTO drives. Microcode level is 16E0 The site belongs to a customer who doesn´t like very much applying patches. Should I try to convince him to upgrade TSM/ATAPE/Microcode? Or is there anther issue? Thank you in advance for your attencion Paul van Dongen
Re: Performance again!!!
Yes. That's likely. Tape mount, depending on technology is a minute or two. Positioning, again based on technology can be zero to 5-6 minutes. 3590 probably much less, DLT perhaps more. Kelly J. Lipp Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc. PO Box 51313 Colorado Springs, CO 80949 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.storsol.com or www.storserver.com (719)531-5926 Fax: (240)539-7175 -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Fletcher, Leland D. Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Performance again!!! A comment about performance being 9 minutes to tape and 75 seconds to disk. Is it possible that most of the 9 minutes was tape mount and positioning time? Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com http://launch.yahoo.com/ Lee Fletcher Network Project Integrator Ameren Callaway Plant 573-676-4106 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance again!!!
A comment about performance being 9 minutes to tape and 75 seconds to disk. Is it possible that most of the 9 minutes was tape mount and positioning time? Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com http://launch.yahoo.com/ Lee Fletcher Network Project Integrator Ameren Callaway Plant 573-676-4106 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance again!!!
hello, no it couldn't, because we calculated it excluding the mounting time when the data started to be transfered and written to the tape Thx Sandra --- Fletcher, Leland D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A comment about performance being 9 minutes to tape and 75 seconds to disk. Is it possible that most of the 9 minutes was tape mount and positioning time? Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com http://launch.yahoo.com/ Lee Fletcher Network Project Integrator Ameren Callaway Plant 573-676-4106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Re: Performance again!!!
Backup direct to tape involves the communications. Migration is purely server process. So its check can eliminate some TCP bottlenecks (if any). For local client there should be no big difference. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Performance again!!! Hello, we didn't try that one ... Is there any reason for the migration from disk to tape to be faster than backup from disk to tape? thx Sandra --- Zlatko Krastev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long does the migration to tape take after backup to disk? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Re: Performance again!!!
How long does the migration to tape take after backup to disk? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Re: Performance again!!!
Hello, we didn't try that one ... Is there any reason for the migration from disk to tape to be faster than backup from disk to tape? thx Sandra --- Zlatko Krastev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long does the migration to tape take after backup to disk? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Performance again!!! Hello everybody, It seems like TSM performance problems will neer end!!! Here is the new problem: The customer is running TSM 4.2.1.0 on a Windows 2000 server machine . An IBM rack case 82XX which contains a Quantum DLT8000 tape drive is connected to the server. The driver version for the Quantum DLT drive is 1.5 and is installed on the W2K machine. We tried a backup of 350MB on the local server with the Windows 2000 Backup utility and it took us approximately 75 seconds . Next , we tried the same Backup from TSM using its Device Driver and it took us about 9 minutes . We tried switching TSM to use the Native device driver but still we got the same performance result . So we upgraded to 4.2.2 ; In the Device Manager for TSM,we can see that TSMSCSI.exe is upgraded to 4.2.2.25 and the ADSMSCSI.sys is 4.2.2.3 . The server has a version of 4.2.2.25 . Still , we obtained poor backup performance . We suspected that maybe it was a database bottleneck ( eventhough it is still empty) ; so we tried the same Backup using TSM but the destination was on the HardDisk. The performance was good and the backup finished within 75seconds . So, we can eliminate the database problem. Also, we noticed with version 4.2.2.0 that it is crashing frequently . It was exiting abnormally . On the site of tivoli, the latest version of TSM server is 4.2.2 . We do not have the 5.1 release . does anyone have a suggestion? thx a lot Sandra __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
