Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
A couple of other things to consider: - Newer VTLs will have "data reduction" options to eliminate duplicate data. Different vendors have different algorithms on doing this. Some do it at the file level, others at the block level, or other levels. TSM does not currently have any data reduction capabilities for devclass=file (or anything else). - Consider your migration to a new server platform. At some point, you will want to replace your server. Doing a push/pull with a server that is using a VTL is a little easier than doing one that is using devclass=file. - VTLs, like real tape libraries, can be shared using the TSM Shared Library Manager, among multiple TSM servers. devclass=file space needs to be dedicated, therefore resource balancing may require a little more effort. I haven't heard anyone mention experience with data reduction VTLs. Does anyone have any experience with them yet? ..Paul At 02:36 PM 12/7/2006, Kelly Lipp wrote: And one other advantage of VTL that I could see is they often (always) provide compression. Something we can only get on disk if we let the client do the work. So for half the disk you get twice the space. Or somesuch nonsense like that (unless you believe Overland, then you get 5x compression...) Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E Ehresman Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:32 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? The other advantage of a VTL over a disk subsystem when implementing an all disk storagepool is that lan-free will work to a VTL but not to FILE disk (without Sanergy). David >>> "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/7/2006 7:27 AM >>> My 2 cents: There is on big advantage for using a VTL over a disk subsystem: compression. We are also using a EMC DL700 which uses in-the-box LTO compatible compression. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner Sent: donderdag 7 december 2006 9:35 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind --
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:24:12 -0500, Orville Lantto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > The killer feature of VTLs is data de-duplication, which is beginning to > be available. No, no! An elephant is like a snake! [1] The killer feature of VTLs is that it permits underutilized tapes with just a few tracks at the head to occupy their true data size, instead of the entire physical cartridge. The killer feature of VTLs is that it permits you to offer as many "tape heads" as performance will sustain, instead of being limited by the number of physical objects you buy. The killer feature of VTLs is that most of us work in or near shops whose hardware purchase behavior is so ossified that we can leap four generations of intervening tech, at which point the payoff is finally compelling for the decision makers. We're putting in a VTL for our mainframe that will replace some 20,000 3580 volumes with a measly 7TB of disk. Whoosh! bye-bye 8x 3480 drives and floorspace for ~10 racks. Whoosh! bye-bye a few thousand square feet of tape racks. And once it's done, we can give our operators work that is a little less mind-numbing than "Pick up the tape, insert the tape. Pick up the tape, shelve the tape". Maybe even something interesting. - Allen S. Rout [1] http://www.jainworld.com/education/stories25.asp
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Compression is nice, but many VTLs take a large performance hit doing compression. The killer feature of VTLs is data de-duplication, which is beginning to be available. Orville L. Lantto Storage Consultant GlassHouse Technologies, Inc. 200 Crossing Boulevard Framingham, MA 01702 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.glasshouse.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Stapleton Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:08 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner >I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk >array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks >(DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual >tapes. The problem with this being, of course, that you get no compression of data--the big advantage of VTL and the purpose of the VTL layer. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM consultant
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner >I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk >array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks >(DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual >tapes. The problem with this being, of course, that you get no compression of data--the big advantage of VTL and the purpose of the VTL layer. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior TSM consultant
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Keeping large filesystems mounted ties up OS memory? Creating storage pool volumes ties up TSM database space? Keeping filesystems mounted all the time increases the likelihood that a crash will lead to corruption? How much perl scripting would be required to emulate an external type library by mounting and unmounting filesystems and creating symlinks? Emulating tape drives might be tough though. [RC] On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Roger Deschner wrote: I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). Thank You. Nancy Backhaus Enterprise Systems (716)887-7979 HealthNow, NY 716-887-7979 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
And one other advantage of VTL that I could see is they often (always) provide compression. Something we can only get on disk if we let the client do the work. So for half the disk you get twice the space. Or somesuch nonsense like that (unless you believe Overland, then you get 5x compression...) Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E Ehresman Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:32 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? The other advantage of a VTL over a disk subsystem when implementing an all disk storagepool is that lan-free will work to a VTL but not to FILE disk (without Sanergy). David >>> "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/7/2006 7:27 AM >>> My 2 cents: There is on big advantage for using a VTL over a disk subsystem: compression. We are also using a EMC DL700 which uses in-the-box LTO compatible compression. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner Sent: donderdag 7 december 2006 9:35 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: >Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 >Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB >Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar >18 LTO Tape Drives >LTO 2 Tapes >600 slots >Clients - 135 (Wintel) >AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) > >We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s >TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a >backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for >disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we >back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite >tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups >done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add >a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to >offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We w
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
The other advantage of a VTL over a disk subsystem when implementing an all disk storagepool is that lan-free will work to a VTL but not to FILE disk (without Sanergy). David >>> "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/7/2006 7:27 AM >>> My 2 cents: There is on big advantage for using a VTL over a disk subsystem: compression. We are also using a EMC DL700 which uses in-the-box LTO compatible compression. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner Sent: donderdag 7 december 2006 9:35 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: >Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 >Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB >Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar >18 LTO Tape Drives >LTO 2 Tapes >600 slots >Clients - 135 (Wintel) >AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) > >We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s >TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a >backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for >disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we >back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite >tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups >done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add >a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to >offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to >also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. > > >I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? > >Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). > > > >Thank You. > > >Nancy Backhaus >Enterprise Systems >(716)887-7979 >HealthNow, NY >716-887-7979 > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for >the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsibl
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Roger, What do you recommend as a RESOURCEUTILIZATION for restores of large files systems? David >>> Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/7/2006 3:35 AM >>> I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: >Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 >Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB >Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar >18 LTO Tape Drives >LTO 2 Tapes >600 slots >Clients - 135 (Wintel) >AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) > >We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s >TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup >of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for >disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we >back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite >tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups >done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add >a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to >offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to >also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. > > >I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? > >Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). > > > >Thank You. > > >Nancy Backhaus >Enterprise Systems >(716)887-7979 >HealthNow, NY >716-887-7979 > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original >message. >
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Kelly,
My backup window is all the time. Backups start as early as 4pm to 8am
the next morning. I haven't tried more than two max processes for one
of my larger pools.I have 12 disk pools (drives) tied up until 8am or
longer, plus not to mention the impact to the client backup/thrashing.
Backup Window is: This includes client backup, and mainframe job
scheduler hooked in. Data writing to all 12 disk pools from 4pm -8am
Starttime: 4pm
Endtime:8am
Currently:
Backups occur during 4pm > 8am *I would tie up those drives from 4pm-8am
TSM DB backups:
7am - TSM DB full backup *problem already, clients are overlapping tsm db
backup. Not good.
8am 4pm - Disk Migrations to Onsite tape occurs -12 disk pools
9am -10am :Expiration runs daily
10am -checkout script runs to take dr tapes offsite *problem which my
backup from last night isn't in the checkout, but the backup from the
previous day.
Between 2pm-8pm: Backup onsite tape to offsite tape pools * problem,
that data from the night before is still in the library so it is not going
offsite until the next day...yikes.
9am - 12am -running onsite 10 onsite tape pools reclamation throughout the
day, as migrations end. These are staggered.
12am-7am: Run offsite reclamation, for 7 Offsite Pools
12am = TSM DB full backup
Nancy Backhaus
Enterprise Systems
(716)887-7979
HealthNow, NY
716-887-7979
Kelly Lipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
12/06/2006 04:36 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What
Vendors are you using
for Virtual Tape?
Based on your config I'm guessing you're having trouble completing the
backup stg operations due to the fact that you get a single large
process running to a single tape drive (or tape to tape) and that's
taking too long.
I would suggest using the copystg parameter on the primary tape pool and
have that large database go directly to the primary and copy pool tapes
simultaneously. That will eliminate the need to do the backup stg
tapepool copypool operation during daily processing. I would also
backup stg diskpool copypool before I migrate. Again, the goal, I
assume, is to get the backup stg operations completed as early as
possible.
So in summary:
1. Large stuff goes directly to tapepool with copystgpool set to
copypool. You have plenty of tape drives so there should not be any
conflict during the backup.
2. backup stg diskpool copypool maxproc=10 (or whatever) first thing or
maybe even start this during the backup window (careful with that as
that can slow the performance of client backups and the backup stg
operation).
3. Simultaneous with that, backup stg tapepool copypool (just in case
something when afoul).
4. backup db
5. prepare
6. Then do the migrations and other housekeeping chores.
With the number of tape drives you have, I'm thinking with this
rearrangement you should be able to get the work done. I don't think a
VTL would help you anyway! Sorry about that you hardware sellers!
Thanks,
Kelly J. Lipp
VP Manufacturing & CTO
STORServer, Inc.
485-B Elkton Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719-266-8777
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Nancy L Backhaus
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:20 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors
are you using for Virtual Tape?
Background:
Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3
Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar
18 LTO Tape Drives
LTO 2 Tapes
600 slots
Clients - 135 (Wintel)
AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2)
We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1
1/2s
TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup
of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for
disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we
back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite
tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups
done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to
add
a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to
offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to
also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too.
I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape?
Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories).
Thank You.
Nancy Backhaus
Enterprise Systems
(716)887-7979
HealthNow, NY
716-887-7979
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary,
confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, di
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
My 2 cents: There is on big advantage for using a VTL over a disk subsystem: compression. We are also using a EMC DL700 which uses in-the-box LTO compatible compression. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Deschner Sent: donderdag 7 december 2006 9:35 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: >Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 >Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB >Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar >18 LTO Tape Drives >LTO 2 Tapes >600 slots >Clients - 135 (Wintel) >AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) > >We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s >TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a >backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for >disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we >back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite >tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups >done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add >a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to >offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to >also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. > > >I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? > >Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). > > > >Thank You. > > >Nancy Backhaus >Enterprise Systems >(716)887-7979 >HealthNow, NY >716-887-7979 > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for >the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. > ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks (DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there. Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that lying just adds overhead. We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients. Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation on real tape effectively, and those who cannot. The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders of magnitude. The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape, then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else. We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting automating the process of creating multiple restore streams. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote: >Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 >Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB >Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar >18 LTO Tape Drives >LTO 2 Tapes >600 slots >Clients - 135 (Wintel) >AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) > >We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s >TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup >of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for >disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we >back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite >tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups >done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add >a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to >offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to >also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. > > >I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? > >Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). > > > >Thank You. > > >Nancy Backhaus >Enterprise Systems >(716)887-7979 >HealthNow, NY >716-887-7979 > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the >sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, >confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized >review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation >of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for >delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by >reply email and destroy all copies of the original >message. >
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
I have a Sepaton VTL and it has helped us tremendously to meet our requirements. Although the VTL did help reduce our backup window by over 70% and we have sustained backup speeds of 150MB/s and I have seen them has high has 300MB/s. You are going to need to reconfigure the way your clients backup for example you may need to reconfigure your db2 client for better disk read performance and send data using multiple TSM sessions most of the time the client is the bottle neck. Then you should start looking at your TSM server, we had to implement aggregate multiple gig network cards just to handle the client throughput. You may also need to implement multiple san cards to your disk storage or vtl to get the required throughput. In my experience with vtl's they do write much faster than regular disk pools and tape drives. We use TS1120 drives and I was not able to get better throughput to my tape drives than I am getting to the VTL. And the tape drives are supposed to be faster. On Wed, December 6, 2006 4:41 pm, Kelly Lipp wrote: > Your best bet is to always wait for the more cogent description of the > solution before proceeding. You can always count on Wanda to clean up > my mess! > > In fact, I think I'll steal this as it is a very concise description of > when/why you might consider a VTL. Perhaps the most concise description > written... > > Thanks, > > > Kelly J. Lipp > VP Manufacturing & CTO > STORServer, Inc. > 485-B Elkton Drive > Colorado Springs, CO 80907 > 719-266-8777 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Prather, Wanda > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:09 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What > Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? > > I concur with Kelly's evaluation. > > Where VTL's really shine: > -On restores of multiple files (like restoring a large directory > of small files), >no tape mounts are required, even if data is not > collocated > -Since you don't need to collocate, migration and on-site > reclamation are much faster. > -Reclamation of offsite tapes is MUCH faster, as the input tape > mounts are eliminated > > But most VTL's on the market are made with SATA disk, which are at the > low end of disk performance. Depending on the vendor, model, > configuration, and your client hardware, backup & restores from VTL's of > a SINGLE LARGE FILE file may not be any faster than (fast) tape. And > then there is the question of how fast your SERVER can push data (most > of my customers don't have servers yet that are capable of pushing LTO3 > drives at full speed!) > > So you need to REALLY figure out where your bottleneck is before you > decide how to fix it. > > -If what is causing you to run slowly is MOUNT times, you need a VTL. > > -If what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write > speed/sec is already up to LTO2 speed (30-35MB/sec), it may be more > cost-effective to drop in LTO3 drives, which are more than twice as > fast. (75-80MB/sec for IBM LTO3). > > -if what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write > speed/sec is less than 30-35MB/sec, it isn't the LTO tape that's causing > your problem - your bottleneck is somewhere else! (like your server DB, > your network, your diskpool, the client etc.). > > That being said, implementing a VTL is very easy and has many benefits. > However, if you decide to go with a VTL, MAKE SURE you get a commitment > from the vendor of how many MB/sec SUSTAINED throughput they support, so > you have an idea just how fast you can push AND /pull 1 TB of data IN A > SINGLE LARGE FILE. There are a lot of VTL's on the market, and they all > have different throughput ratings. > > Wanda Prather > "I/O, I/O, It's all about I/O" -(me) > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kelly Lipp > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:36 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are > you using for Virtual Tape? > > Based on your config I'm guessing you're having trouble completing the > backup stg operations due to the fact that you get a single large > process running to a single tape drive (or tape to tape) and that's > taking too long. > > I would suggest using the copystg parameter on the primary tape pool and > have that large database go directly to the primary and copy pool tapes > simultaneously. That will eliminate the need to d
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
We have 2 EMC CDL740's which we use as 4 non-redundant VTL's (740 is the redundant CDL version) We have been running about 10 months. Our TSM servers do not have the I/O capacity to exceed the CDL's I/O so I can only say they are faster than a 4 CPU 6H1. We have had 2 crashes of one CDL server. Other than that we have been extremely happy with them. We have saved money versus buying more tapes which includes buying more VTL space. EMC does use 500GB ATA disks in RAID 3 groups. With a VTL, you should really think about what happens when you collocate. We setup our VTLs to where we did not oversubscribe the available space because we do not collocate. Our setup: 2x AIX 6H1 TSM 5.2.2.4 2x CDL740 (non-redundant) 18x 3590-E drives (off-site tape) 4.3TB per day Disk then fake tape Offsite on not fake tape Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy L Backhaus Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:20 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Background: Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). Thank You. Nancy Backhaus Enterprise Systems (716)887-7979 HealthNow, NY 716-887-7979 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Your best bet is to always wait for the more cogent description of the solution before proceeding. You can always count on Wanda to clean up my mess! In fact, I think I'll steal this as it is a very concise description of when/why you might consider a VTL. Perhaps the most concise description written... Thanks, Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:09 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? I concur with Kelly's evaluation. Where VTL's really shine: -On restores of multiple files (like restoring a large directory of small files), no tape mounts are required, even if data is not collocated -Since you don't need to collocate, migration and on-site reclamation are much faster. -Reclamation of offsite tapes is MUCH faster, as the input tape mounts are eliminated But most VTL's on the market are made with SATA disk, which are at the low end of disk performance. Depending on the vendor, model, configuration, and your client hardware, backup & restores from VTL's of a SINGLE LARGE FILE file may not be any faster than (fast) tape. And then there is the question of how fast your SERVER can push data (most of my customers don't have servers yet that are capable of pushing LTO3 drives at full speed!) So you need to REALLY figure out where your bottleneck is before you decide how to fix it. -If what is causing you to run slowly is MOUNT times, you need a VTL. -If what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write speed/sec is already up to LTO2 speed (30-35MB/sec), it may be more cost-effective to drop in LTO3 drives, which are more than twice as fast. (75-80MB/sec for IBM LTO3). -if what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write speed/sec is less than 30-35MB/sec, it isn't the LTO tape that's causing your problem - your bottleneck is somewhere else! (like your server DB, your network, your diskpool, the client etc.). That being said, implementing a VTL is very easy and has many benefits. However, if you decide to go with a VTL, MAKE SURE you get a commitment from the vendor of how many MB/sec SUSTAINED throughput they support, so you have an idea just how fast you can push AND /pull 1 TB of data IN A SINGLE LARGE FILE. There are a lot of VTL's on the market, and they all have different throughput ratings. Wanda Prather "I/O, I/O, It's all about I/O" -(me) -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:36 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Based on your config I'm guessing you're having trouble completing the backup stg operations due to the fact that you get a single large process running to a single tape drive (or tape to tape) and that's taking too long. I would suggest using the copystg parameter on the primary tape pool and have that large database go directly to the primary and copy pool tapes simultaneously. That will eliminate the need to do the backup stg tapepool copypool operation during daily processing. I would also backup stg diskpool copypool before I migrate. Again, the goal, I assume, is to get the backup stg operations completed as early as possible. So in summary: 1. Large stuff goes directly to tapepool with copystgpool set to copypool. You have plenty of tape drives so there should not be any conflict during the backup. 2. backup stg diskpool copypool maxproc=10 (or whatever) first thing or maybe even start this during the backup window (careful with that as that can slow the performance of client backups and the backup stg operation). 3. Simultaneous with that, backup stg tapepool copypool (just in case something when afoul). 4. backup db 5. prepare 6. Then do the migrations and other housekeeping chores. With the number of tape drives you have, I'm thinking with this rearrangement you should be able to get the work done. I don't think a VTL would help you anyway! Sorry about that you hardware sellers! Thanks, Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy L Backhaus Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:20 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Background: Tivoli Sto
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
I concur with Kelly's evaluation. Where VTL's really shine: -On restores of multiple files (like restoring a large directory of small files), no tape mounts are required, even if data is not collocated -Since you don't need to collocate, migration and on-site reclamation are much faster. -Reclamation of offsite tapes is MUCH faster, as the input tape mounts are eliminated But most VTL's on the market are made with SATA disk, which are at the low end of disk performance. Depending on the vendor, model, configuration, and your client hardware, backup & restores from VTL's of a SINGLE LARGE FILE file may not be any faster than (fast) tape. And then there is the question of how fast your SERVER can push data (most of my customers don't have servers yet that are capable of pushing LTO3 drives at full speed!) So you need to REALLY figure out where your bottleneck is before you decide how to fix it. -If what is causing you to run slowly is MOUNT times, you need a VTL. -If what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write speed/sec is already up to LTO2 speed (30-35MB/sec), it may be more cost-effective to drop in LTO3 drives, which are more than twice as fast. (75-80MB/sec for IBM LTO3). -if what is causing you to run too slow is WRITE time, and your write speed/sec is less than 30-35MB/sec, it isn't the LTO tape that's causing your problem - your bottleneck is somewhere else! (like your server DB, your network, your diskpool, the client etc.). That being said, implementing a VTL is very easy and has many benefits. However, if you decide to go with a VTL, MAKE SURE you get a commitment from the vendor of how many MB/sec SUSTAINED throughput they support, so you have an idea just how fast you can push AND /pull 1 TB of data IN A SINGLE LARGE FILE. There are a lot of VTL's on the market, and they all have different throughput ratings. Wanda Prather "I/O, I/O, It's all about I/O" -(me) -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:36 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Based on your config I'm guessing you're having trouble completing the backup stg operations due to the fact that you get a single large process running to a single tape drive (or tape to tape) and that's taking too long. I would suggest using the copystg parameter on the primary tape pool and have that large database go directly to the primary and copy pool tapes simultaneously. That will eliminate the need to do the backup stg tapepool copypool operation during daily processing. I would also backup stg diskpool copypool before I migrate. Again, the goal, I assume, is to get the backup stg operations completed as early as possible. So in summary: 1. Large stuff goes directly to tapepool with copystgpool set to copypool. You have plenty of tape drives so there should not be any conflict during the backup. 2. backup stg diskpool copypool maxproc=10 (or whatever) first thing or maybe even start this during the backup window (careful with that as that can slow the performance of client backups and the backup stg operation). 3. Simultaneous with that, backup stg tapepool copypool (just in case something when afoul). 4. backup db 5. prepare 6. Then do the migrations and other housekeeping chores. With the number of tape drives you have, I'm thinking with this rearrangement you should be able to get the work done. I don't think a VTL would help you anyway! Sorry about that you hardware sellers! Thanks, Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy L Backhaus Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:20 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Background: Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our ta
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Based on your config I'm guessing you're having trouble completing the backup stg operations due to the fact that you get a single large process running to a single tape drive (or tape to tape) and that's taking too long. I would suggest using the copystg parameter on the primary tape pool and have that large database go directly to the primary and copy pool tapes simultaneously. That will eliminate the need to do the backup stg tapepool copypool operation during daily processing. I would also backup stg diskpool copypool before I migrate. Again, the goal, I assume, is to get the backup stg operations completed as early as possible. So in summary: 1. Large stuff goes directly to tapepool with copystgpool set to copypool. You have plenty of tape drives so there should not be any conflict during the backup. 2. backup stg diskpool copypool maxproc=10 (or whatever) first thing or maybe even start this during the backup window (careful with that as that can slow the performance of client backups and the backup stg operation). 3. Simultaneous with that, backup stg tapepool copypool (just in case something when afoul). 4. backup db 5. prepare 6. Then do the migrations and other housekeeping chores. With the number of tape drives you have, I'm thinking with this rearrangement you should be able to get the work done. I don't think a VTL would help you anyway! Sorry about that you hardware sellers! Thanks, Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy L Backhaus Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:20 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Background: Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). Thank You. Nancy Backhaus Enterprise Systems (716)887-7979 HealthNow, NY 716-887-7979 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
After a year long review effort we chose Sepaton VTL. We have not procurred or implemented the hardware yet. Based upon your infrastructure listed it looks like they would be a good fit for your needs. Nancy L Backhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 12/06/2006 12:19 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape? Background: Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). Thank You. Nancy Backhaus Enterprise Systems (716)887-7979 HealthNow, NY 716-887-7979 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?
Background: Tivoli Storage Manager Extended Edition 5.3.2.2 Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3 Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar 18 LTO Tape Drives LTO 2 Tapes 600 slots Clients - 135 (Wintel) AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2) We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.1 1/2s TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes offsite for disaster recovery.The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that we back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the onsite tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery. We can't get our backups done and out the door to meet our RTO objective. We are looking to add a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library to offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.We would like to also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too. I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape? Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories). Thank You. Nancy Backhaus Enterprise Systems (716)887-7979 HealthNow, NY 716-887-7979 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, trade secret or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
