Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:01:13 -0400, "Prather, Wanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: > LTO2 drives run at 35-40MB/sec. > LTO3 drives run at 65-70MB/sec. > GigE will support maybe 70 MB/sec, if there isn't too much congestion. *koff* 120. :) But complete support for the base case. Unless your LAN is seriously congested, the SAN-based backups are unnecessary complexity. And it's usually cheaper to upgrade the LAN than to do the extra work. - Allen S. Rout
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
I wouldn't simply use the figure from the tuning guide. The buffpool size is useful in increasing performance through upping the database cache hit %, which should ideally be over 98%. http://www.tsmwiki.com/tsmwiki/CacheHitPct Matt. > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Francisco Molero > Sent: 16 October 2006 20:08 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup > > From performance and tunning guide: > > 262144 > > - Mensaje original > De: Robert Ouzen Ouzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:39:38 > Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup > > Fran > > > > What is your suggestion of the size for the buffpoolsize > parameter on a 2 GB memory server and LTO2 TAPES > > > > Regards > > > > Robert Ouzen > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Francisco Molero > > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:28 PM > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup > > > > In my opinion, you can get great performance with LTO3 and > aplications like db2, Oracle, SAP, Domino, Exchange, etc. It > is a good idea if you want to backup big files. I don't > recommend you if you want to backup fileservers. > > > > I have found differents performance. The best one was 1,5 TB > y 1:30 minutes using LTO3 and DS8100, SAP with Oracle and AIX. > > > > The best parameters in TSM 5.3 are the defaults, Only you > have to change the buffpoolsize in the server. The best > communication method in TSM 5.3 is sharedmem. > > > > I hope this help you. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Fran > > > > TSM deployment certified. > > TSM administrator certified. > > ITIL Certified. > > AIX Certified. > > > > - Mensaje original > > De: Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:01:51 > > Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup > > > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Anker Lerret > > >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster than 100MB/1GB > > >> Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few cases they will actually be > > >> slower.) > > > > > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing > > >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice > improvements in > > >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just > talking about the > > >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is > overloaded? > > >Or is there something else I'm missing? > > > > I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from > real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to > tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly > faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said > earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free > backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or > poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the > disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. > > 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go > directly to tape > > > > -- > > Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > Senior TSM engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. > > Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. > > http://es.voice.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > __ > LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. > Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. > http://es.voice.yahoo.com > > > > This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your computer. You should not copy the email, use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email may be personal to the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Digica. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check this email for the presence of viruses. Digica accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. UK: Phoenix House, Colliers Way, Nottingham, NG8 6AT UK Reception Tel: + 44 (0) 115 977 1177 Support Centre: 0845 607 7070 Fax: + 44 (0) 115 977 7000 http://www.digica.com SOUTH AFRICA: Building 3, Parc du Cap, Mispel Road, Bellville, 7535, South Africa Tel: + 27 (0) 21 957 4900 Fax: + 27 (0) 21 948 3135 http://www.digica.com
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
Here's something quantifiable: LTO2 drives run at 35-40MB/sec. LTO3 drives run at 65-70MB/sec. GigE will support maybe 70 MB/sec, if there isn't too much congestion. So backing up over the SAN instead of Ethernet to an LTO2 drive will still give you - 35-40MB/sec. If your problem is Ethernet congestion, you may come out cheaper to buy a 2nd NIC for your client and TSM server, and creating a "backup net" network segment, that trying to implement Lan-Free, 'cause the Lan-Free may not gain any speed for you. (Remember that when Lan-Free clients first became available, many people were still backing up over 100MB Ethernet.) From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Charles A Hart Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 9:21 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup David, Was your 4-5 times faster going direct to a Physical Tape Drive? I ask as we are moving to all Virtual Tape we are finding the LAN Free backups to any of the VTL Heads (Dilligent / Falcon Store etc) become the bottleneck. I can see a stream to a 3592 or maybe an LTO3 drive do better than a VTL based LanFree. I wish someone would make a VTL Head on a Unix box, there's just not the I/O capacity in these Intel/AMD based linux VTL heads Regards, Charles Hart UHT - Data Protection David E Ehresman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 10/16/2006 01:15 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup My experience has been different. Lan Free backups of our Oracle databases run 4 to 5 times faster than over our lan. Systems with lots of small files to backup did not show much improvement going lan free. David Ehresman >>> Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/16/2006 2:01 PM >>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
Yes, our LAN Free goes directly to physical tape, namely 3590E in a 3494 library. David >>> Charles A Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/17/2006 9:21 AM >>> David, Was your 4-5 times faster going direct to a Physical Tape Drive? I ask as we are moving to all Virtual Tape we are finding the LAN Free backups to any of the VTL Heads (Dilligent / Falcon Store etc) become the bottleneck. I can see a stream to a 3592 or maybe an LTO3 drive do better than a VTL based LanFree. I wish someone would make a VTL Head on a Unix box, there's just not the I/O capacity in these Intel/AMD based linux VTL heads Regards, Charles Hart UHT - Data Protection David E Ehresman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 10/16/2006 01:15 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup My experience has been different. Lan Free backups of our Oracle databases run 4 to 5 times faster than over our lan. Systems with lots of small files to backup did not show much improvement going lan free. David Ehresman >>> Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/16/2006 2:01 PM >>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
David, Was your 4-5 times faster going direct to a Physical Tape Drive? I ask as we are moving to all Virtual Tape we are finding the LAN Free backups to any of the VTL Heads (Dilligent / Falcon Store etc) become the bottleneck. I can see a stream to a 3592 or maybe an LTO3 drive do better than a VTL based LanFree. I wish someone would make a VTL Head on a Unix box, there's just not the I/O capacity in these Intel/AMD based linux VTL heads Regards, Charles Hart UHT - Data Protection David E Ehresman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 10/16/2006 01:15 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup My experience has been different. Lan Free backups of our Oracle databases run 4 to 5 times faster than over our lan. Systems with lots of small files to backup did not show much improvement going lan free. David Ehresman >>> Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/16/2006 2:01 PM >>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
>From performance and tunning guide: 262144 - Mensaje original De: Robert Ouzen Ouzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:39:38 Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup Fran What is your suggestion of the size for the buffpoolsize parameter on a 2 GB memory server and LTO2 TAPES Regards Robert Ouzen -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Molero Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:28 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup In my opinion, you can get great performance with LTO3 and aplications like db2, Oracle, SAP, Domino, Exchange, etc. It is a good idea if you want to backup big files. I don't recommend you if you want to backup fileservers. I have found differents performance. The best one was 1,5 TB y 1:30 minutes using LTO3 and DS8100, SAP with Oracle and AIX. The best parameters in TSM 5.3 are the defaults, Only you have to change the buffpoolsize in the server. The best communication method in TSM 5.3 is sharedmem. I hope this help you. Regards, Fran TSM deployment certified. TSM administrator certified. ITIL Certified. AIX Certified. - Mensaje original De: Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:01:51 Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster than 100MB/1GB >> Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few cases they will actually be >> slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
Fran What is your suggestion of the size for the buffpoolsize parameter on a 2 GB memory server and LTO2 TAPES Regards Robert Ouzen -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Molero Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:28 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Question about LanFreeBackup In my opinion, you can get great performance with LTO3 and aplications like db2, Oracle, SAP, Domino, Exchange, etc. It is a good idea if you want to backup big files. I don't recommend you if you want to backup fileservers. I have found differents performance. The best one was 1,5 TB y 1:30 minutes using LTO3 and DS8100, SAP with Oracle and AIX. The best parameters in TSM 5.3 are the defaults, Only you have to change the buffpoolsize in the server. The best communication method in TSM 5.3 is sharedmem. I hope this help you. Regards, Fran TSM deployment certified. TSM administrator certified. ITIL Certified. AIX Certified. - Mensaje original De: Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:01:51 Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster than 100MB/1GB >> Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few cases they will actually be >> slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
In my opinion, you can get great performance with LTO3 and aplications like db2, Oracle, SAP, Domino, Exchange, etc. It is a good idea if you want to backup big files. I don't recommend you if you want to backup fileservers. I have found differents performance. The best one was 1,5 TB y 1:30 minutes using LTO3 and DS8100, SAP with Oracle and AIX. The best parameters in TSM 5.3 are the defaults, Only you have to change the buffpoolsize in the server. The best communication method in TSM 5.3 is sharedmem. I hope this help you. Regards, Fran TSM deployment certified. TSM administrator certified. ITIL Certified. AIX Certified. - Mensaje original De: Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: lunes, 16 de octubre, 2006 20:01:51 Asunto: Re: Question about LanFreeBackup From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
My experience has been different. Lan Free backups of our Oracle databases run 4 to 5 times faster than over our lan. Systems with lots of small files to backup did not show much improvement going lan free. David Ehresman >>> Mark Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/16/2006 2:01 PM >>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anker Lerret >> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster >> than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few >> cases they will actually be slower.) > >Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing >LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in >large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the >case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? >Or is there something else I'm missing? I can't say that I've got quantifiable data; I speak from real-world experience. SAN-based data transfer from disk to tape has been, in the best of situations, only slightly faster than similar LAN-based data transfer. As I said earlier, the only advantages I've ever seen to LAN-free backups have been 1. where the LAN is too congested (or poorly configured) to guantee reasonable backup speeds 2. the disk storage pool is too small to handle large file backups. 3. you want to guarantee that an entire node's backups go directly to tape -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
> Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster > than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few > cases they will actually be slower.) Mark, can you say some more about that? We're hoping to start doing LAN-free and I was hoping that we could see some nice improvements in large backups that go straight to tape. Are you just talking about the case where the LAN is relatively uncongested and the SAN is overloaded? Or is there something else I'm missing? anker
Re: Question about LanFreeBackup
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Ouzen Ouzen >I implant a LanFreeBackup of my Exchange server 2003 of 169 GB database, by >lan took 04:30 hours to backup on LTO2 tape by San I decrease to 02:20 >hours. >I wonder if they are some tips to decrease the time any more ! Remember that LAN-free backups are often no faster than 100MB/1GB Ethernet LAN-based backups. (In a few cases they will actually be slower.) LAN-free is really a good option only when your LAN network is too congested for timely backups, or you want to guarantee that all of a given node's backups go to tape. If you're using LAN-free backups with the purpose of sending them directly to tape, that might also be done by use of the MAXSIZE parameter in your disk storage pool, or by clever use of storage pools and management classes. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM engineer
Question about LanFreeBackup
Hi to all I implant a LanFreeBackup of my Exchange server 2003 of 169 GB database, by lan took 04:30 hours to backup on LTO2 tape by San I decrease to 02:20 hours. I wonder if they are some tips to decrease the time any more ! My TSM server is on a AIX machine , tsm version 5.3.2.4 My TSM storage agent is 5.3.2.0 My TDP for exchange is 5.3.3.0 T.I.A Regards Robert Ouzen
