re-adding (virtual) tape drives in Linux
Hi TSM-ers! I'm still struggling with a few LANFree clients on Linux which cannot mount tapes. I would like to remove the drives on them and re-add them afterwards. I know how to do this in AIX (rmdev followed by a cfgmgr) but I cannot find instructions on how to do this on Linux. All manuals talk about installing lin_tape and poof, the drives are there. But what if you want to redefine them for some reason? Thanks again for your help! Kind regards, Eric van Loon AF/KLM Storage Engineering For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286
Re: virtual tape library versus disk
I do not think TSM prefers either. I suspect they are very similar in the code because both are sequential volumes tracked in a similar way. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Meuleman, Ruud Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:06 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk Hi Andy, Yes, we plan to use a de-duplicating storage device for TSM. Thanks for your responds. Do you know if the application TSM itself have preference? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner, Andy Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:40 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk I assume you plan to use a de-duplicating storage device. 8Gb FC tends to be faster than 10Gb Ethernet. File systems tend to be easier to manage. VTL option tends to cost more. Ethernet in, FC out splits the I/O across more adapters without the joy of routing tables. File systems allow you to smile and answer the auditor's question about what tape the data is on and say, "What is this tape you speak of?" The one that is better is the one that you build your system to use. I believe I could successfully argue either way. I have systems working both ways and I tend to prefer file system, but most of my Ethernet networks will not handle file system so I use mostly VTL. I should note my backend of choice is a Data Domain. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Meuleman, Ruud Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk Hi, Does anybody knows what are the advantages and disadvantages of using virtual tape library instead of "normal" disks for TSM storage pools? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities ** ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities **
Re: virtual tape library versus disk
Hi Andy, Yes, we plan to use a de-duplicating storage device for TSM. Thanks for your responds. Do you know if the application TSM itself have preference? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner, Andy Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:40 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk I assume you plan to use a de-duplicating storage device. 8Gb FC tends to be faster than 10Gb Ethernet. File systems tend to be easier to manage. VTL option tends to cost more. Ethernet in, FC out splits the I/O across more adapters without the joy of routing tables. File systems allow you to smile and answer the auditor's question about what tape the data is on and say, "What is this tape you speak of?" The one that is better is the one that you build your system to use. I believe I could successfully argue either way. I have systems working both ways and I tend to prefer file system, but most of my Ethernet networks will not handle file system so I use mostly VTL. I should note my backend of choice is a Data Domain. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Meuleman, Ruud Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk Hi, Does anybody knows what are the advantages and disadvantages of using virtual tape library instead of "normal" disks for TSM storage pools? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities ** ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities **
Re: virtual tape library versus disk
I assume you plan to use a de-duplicating storage device. 8Gb FC tends to be faster than 10Gb Ethernet. File systems tend to be easier to manage. VTL option tends to cost more. Ethernet in, FC out splits the I/O across more adapters without the joy of routing tables. File systems allow you to smile and answer the auditor's question about what tape the data is on and say, "What is this tape you speak of?" The one that is better is the one that you build your system to use. I believe I could successfully argue either way. I have systems working both ways and I tend to prefer file system, but most of my Ethernet networks will not handle file system so I use mostly VTL. I should note my backend of choice is a Data Domain. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Meuleman, Ruud Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] virtual tape library versus disk Hi, Does anybody knows what are the advantages and disadvantages of using virtual tape library instead of "normal" disks for TSM storage pools? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities **
virtual tape library versus disk
Hi, Does anybody knows what are the advantages and disadvantages of using virtual tape library instead of "normal" disks for TSM storage pools? Kind Regards, Ruud Meuleman ** This transmission is confidential and must not be used or disclosed by anyone other than the intended recipient. Neither Tata Steel Europe Limited nor any of its subsidiaries can accept any responsibility for any use or misuse of the transmission by anyone. For address and company registration details of certain entities within the Tata Steel Europe group of companies, please visit http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/entities **
Re: Virtual Tape Library
Jorge, I think you will find that most of the major vendors put out a reliable offering, so you will get responses from people across the community who use and like all of them. But here is one TSM admin's opinion. The main environment I support has 23 TSM instances, with 7 EMC Disk Libraries. They have been in place over three years. Almost all backup data from these TSM instances goes directly into the EDLs, without going through disk storage pool first. At the largest site, they have 10 TSM instances all sharing one EDL model 4100. Every day about 15TB of new backup flows into it. Then it has to make two copies, one to copy storage pool tape, and another to migrate the data that is a couple days old to primary storage. They can hold at most a few day's data on disk. So that means that this one EDL is handling over 45TB of I/O every day. It has been a real workhorse. Having said that, every three to six months or so, this EDL will run out of memory and crash, and have to be restarted. I think that there must be some small memory leak in the code somewhere, and with the huge volume of I/O, eventually virtual memory gets exhausted. We have put on various service packs as they were recommended to us, but the problem has never gone away. If we are going to have some sort of outage to the environment, to work on some other component, we sometimes perform a preemptive reboot of the EDL, just to start fresh so we won't have to worry about a problem for a few months. The other 6 EDLs in the environment are not nearly as loaded as this one is, and they have never exhibited this problem with virtual memory, so I feel like it is directly tied to how much I/O it does, and not to any real flaw in the product. The other 6 never crash at all. The best way I have found to configure the EDL library to work with TSM is to configure it to emulate an IBM3584 tape library, with LTO1 tape drives. On the TSM server you use the IBM tape drivers (Atape for AIX, or IBMtape for Windows). This has been very easy to configure, and very reliable. (On Windows, make sure you turn on persistent binding on the FC adapter.) One other thing we do is configure the LTO1 tape cartridges to be 50GB tapes. This will give you a little better overall utilization, because you can reclaim tapes sooner as the data ages. But you can make your own decision about that, based on your workload. If you are doing this in an AIX environment, I have some ksh scripts I have written to rename the AIX logical devices to make it easier to manage in a TSM library sharing environment. I can share those offline. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: [ADSM-L] Virtual Tape Library From: Jorge Amil Date: Tue, June 01, 2010 9:57 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Hi everybody. What VTL solution do you recommend?Our main backup tool is TSM and we also have Networker for documentum backup. I mainly look for IBM,EMC,HP,Netapp. Thanks in advance Jorge _ Consejos para seducir ¿Puedes conocer gente nueva a través de Internet? ¡Regístrate ya! http://contactos.es.msn.com/?mtcmk=015352
Virtual Tape Library
Hi everybody. What VTL solution do you recommend?Our main backup tool is TSM and we also have Networker for documentum backup. I mainly look for IBM,EMC,HP,Netapp. Thanks in advance Jorge _ Consejos para seducir ¿Puedes conocer gente nueva a través de Internet? ¡Regístrate ya! http://contactos.es.msn.com/?mtcmk=015352
NetApp VTL (Virtual Tape Library 600) - after some hours of testing
Hi, I currently have at my disposal a NetApp VTL 600 for testing purposes. Setup : It's a single shelf VTL containing 14 500GB SATA disks including 1 hotspare. I have a Windows server attached via FC, TSM 5.4 installed on the server. The VTL is configured to be a NetApp library and it's simulating to have 4 IBM LTO3 drives. Installation : The default TSM device drivers that come with TSM contain the driver for this 'netapp' library and of course the LTO3 drives pose no problem since I can use the default IBM drivers for those as well. My findings so far : I inserted 50 virtual tapes in the VTL and started a label libv command with a checkin=scratch. This took a whole 30 somewhat secondes to complete..50 "tapes" labeled and checked in. It looks like TSM just can't interface with a library (be it virtual of not) faster than this. An audit libr without a checklabel=barcode seems to mount the first virtual tape and then just sit there doing nothing. DB backup (ok, it's a small db, but still) >From the actual start of the backup to the point where the volume is opened takes 1 second. The whole thing for giving the command to the completion and dismount is done in 33 secondes. 15-2-2008 13:21:16 ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: BACKUP DB type=full devclass=LTOCLASS1 15-2-2008 13:21:24 ANR0984I Process 236 for DATABASE BACKUP started in the BACKGROUND at 13:21:25. 15-2-2008 13:21:24 ANR2280I Full database backup started as process 236. 15-2-2008 13:21:24 ANR0405I Session 845 ended for administrator ADMIN (WinNT). 15-2-2008 13:21:25 ANR8337I LTO volume 1L7 mounted in drive MT1.1.0.2 (mt1.1.0.2). 15-2-2008 13:21:25 ANR0513I Process 236 opened output volume 1L7. 15-2-2008 13:21:25 ANR1360I Output volume 1L7 opened (sequence number 1). 15-2-2008 13:21:33 ANR4554I Backed up 7040 of 14162 database pages. 15-2-2008 13:21:44 ANR4554I Backed up 14080 of 14162 database pages. 15-2-2008 13:21:48 ANR1361I Output volume 1L7 closed. 15-2-2008 13:21:48 ANR0515I Process 236 closed volume 1L7. 15-2-2008 13:21:49 ANR4550I Full database backup (process 236) complete, 14162 pages copied. 15-2-2008 13:21:49 ANR0985I Process 236 for DATABASE BACKUP running in the BACKGROUND completed with completion state SUCCESS at 13:21:50. 15-2-2008 13:21:49 ANR8336I Verifying label of LTO volume 1L7 in drive MT1.1.0.2 (mt1.1.0.2). 15-2-2008 13:21:49 ANR8468I LTO volume 1L7 dismounted from drive MT1.1.0.2 (mt1.1.0.2) in library LB1.0.0.2. 13:25:18 localhost : q stgpool Storage Device EstimatedPctPct High Low Next Stora- Pool NameClass NameCapacity Util Migr Mig Mig ge Pool Pct Pct --- -- -- - - --- --- ARCHIVEPOOL DISK 0.0 M0.00.090 70 DISKPOOL BACKUPPOOL DISK 0.0 M0.00.090 70 DISKPOOL DISKPOOL DISK 20 G 31.3 31.3 100 99 LTOPOOL1 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS1105,808 G0.10.890 70 SPACEMGPOOL DISK 0.0 M0.00.090 70 13:32:11 localhost : show transferstats diskpool Statistics for last migration from pool DISKPOOL Start date/time: 02/15/2008 13:27:36 Elapsed time: 165 seconds Total wait time: 1 seconds Number of participating processes: 4 Total duration of all processes: 165 seconds Total physical files: 166 Total logical files: 22003 Total bytes: 6572945408 Average logical files per physical file: 132.5 Average physical file size: 38668.0 KB Number of batch/file transactions ended: 15 Number of batch transactions aborted: 0 Number of file transactions started: 0 Number of file transactions aborted: 0 No storage pool backup information available for DISKPOOL. Guess we got 38MB/s on that migration from a slow internal disk diskpool -> VTL. A funny this is that you can set the size of the virtual volumes in the VTL independent of the drive type you select and configure in TSM. I selected a 10GB data limit per volume on these LTO3 virtual volumes and this is what I get : 13:37:00 localhost : q vol Volume Name Storage Device EstimatedPct Volume Pool NameClass Name Capacity Util Status --- -- - - 1L3 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS1 9,510.2 100.0 Full 1L4 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS116,113.0 100.0 Full 1L5 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS120,840.4 100.0 Full 1L6 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS119,088.1 100.0 Full 1L8 LTOPOOL1 LTOCLASS1 800,000.00.6 Filling E:\TSMDATA\SERVER1\DISK- DISKPOOL DISK 20,000.00.0 On-Line 1.DSM There we see the VTL compression in action as well
Virtual tape library
Hi friends, Can anyone tell me the concept of Virtual Tape Library in Tivoli Storage Manager? I will appreciate if someone can share TSM document with VTL with me. Best regards, Sandeep jain DISCLAIMER The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of information in this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and you are requested to contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.Thank you" This email has been scanned for any virus infection at the sending end.
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.
Re: Oracle rman LAN-free to virtual tape timeout issue
Robben, Have you looked at RESOURCETIMEOUT? RESOURCETIMEOUT Specifies how long the server waits for a resource before canceling the pending acquisition of a resource. Note: For proper management of shared library resources, consider setting the RESOURCETIMEOUT option at the same time limit for all servers in a shared configuration. In the case of error recovery, Tivoli Storage Manager always defers to the longest time limit. > > From: Robben Leaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/11/08 Wed PM 12:02:10 EST > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Oracle rman LAN-free to virtual tape timeout issue > > The setup: TSM servers are ver 5.3.2.0, running on AIX. The situation in > question involves one TSM server instance that the client backs up to, and > a TSM server instance acting as a library manager for a virtual tape > library. > > The client (ver 5.3.2.0) is LAN-free, and doing an rman backup of an Oracle > database. The session starts and is proxied normally to the library > manager, the tape gets mounted, and the catalog compilation starts. > > 15 minutes and a few seconds later (that's just over 900 seconds) - and > it's always this long, but it's also always the same time each day, 4:15 AM > - the proxied session that's holding the tape drive open gets severed > (ANR0480W) from the TSM backup server. A few minutes later, the catalog > compilation finishes and the client tries to start backing up files, but > can't because there isn't a tape available; the backup fails. > > The commtimeout parameter on both of the TSM servers is 16,400 seconds; on > the storage agent it's 14,400. The idletimeout parameter on the servers and > the storage agent is 720 minutes. The throughputtimethreshold on the > storage agent is 270 minutes. There aren't any timeout-type parameters set > in the stanza for this node in the dsm.sys file. > > Am I missing some timeout parameter that has a default of 15 minutes? Could > rman be timing something out? > > Any ideas? > > Robben Leaf > > > -- > Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains > information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy > laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the > intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from > retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this > information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have > received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank > you in advance for your cooperation. > == >
Oracle rman LAN-free to virtual tape timeout issue
The setup: TSM servers are ver 5.3.2.0, running on AIX. The situation in question involves one TSM server instance that the client backs up to, and a TSM server instance acting as a library manager for a virtual tape library. The client (ver 5.3.2.0) is LAN-free, and doing an rman backup of an Oracle database. The session starts and is proxied normally to the library manager, the tape gets mounted, and the catalog compilation starts. 15 minutes and a few seconds later (that's just over 900 seconds) - and it's always this long, but it's also always the same time each day, 4:15 AM - the proxied session that's holding the tape drive open gets severed (ANR0480W) from the TSM backup server. A few minutes later, the catalog compilation finishes and the client tries to start backing up files, but can't because there isn't a tape available; the backup fails. The commtimeout parameter on both of the TSM servers is 16,400 seconds; on the storage agent it's 14,400. The idletimeout parameter on the servers and the storage agent is 720 minutes. The throughputtimethreshold on the storage agent is 270 minutes. There aren't any timeout-type parameters set in the stanza for this node in the dsm.sys file. Am I missing some timeout parameter that has a default of 15 minutes? Could rman be timing something out? Any ideas? Robben Leaf -- Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ==
Re: Quantum DX30 virtual tape library - cartridge sizing
I did professional services for that library, the best practices I found that worked were 32 200GB tapes. Never had any problems at that level. Hope that helps. jeremy -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thorneycroft, Doug Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:49 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Quantum DX30 virtual tape library - cartridge sizing I just had a Quantum DX30 VTL installed last week. the configured available storage is 5.11 TB. the installer set the cartridge size to 35 GB. which gave me 136 35 GB dlt carts for a total of 4.65 TB. meaning that almost 500GB of disk space is unused. Quantum support suggest using a larger cartridge size, but didn't give any suggestions for what would be optimal. Is anyone else using a DX30 (16X400 GB drives)? If so, what cartridge size are you using, and how many carts did the system give you? Doug Thorneycroft > Systems Analyst > County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County > 1955 Workman Mill Road > Whittier, CA 90601 > Tel: (562)699-7411, Ext. 1058 > Fax:(562)695-6756 > www.lacsd.org > > >
Quantum DX30 virtual tape library - cartridge sizing
I just had a Quantum DX30 VTL installed last week. the configured available storage is 5.11 TB. the installer set the cartridge size to 35 GB. which gave me 136 35 GB dlt carts for a total of 4.65 TB. meaning that almost 500GB of disk space is unused. Quantum support suggest using a larger cartridge size, but didn't give any suggestions for what would be optimal. Is anyone else using a DX30 (16X400 GB drives)? If so, what cartridge size are you using, and how many carts did the system give you? Doug Thorneycroft > Systems Analyst > County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County > 1955 Workman Mill Road > Whittier, CA 90601 > Tel: (562)699-7411, Ext. 1058 > Fax:(562)695-6756 > www.lacsd.org > > >
TSM on z/OS - Virtual Tape
After 13 years, we're looking to replace our TSM/VM servers (not by choice, but we've fought that battle with Tivoli and are finally conceding defeat). TSM on z/OS is one possible alternative, but we only have access to virtual tape (STK's flavor) on that platform. TSM on VM currently runs with STK 9840s emulating IBM 3590s. Total tape storage is approx 14 TB. We back up about 25 GB of data per night, with occasional peaks of >100 GB. Our largest clients are Unix System Services and a couple Windows boxes (all >1 TB each). Also 100 or so Linux/390 systems and assorted small Unix, Windows, Lintel clients. I can see any number of potential pitfalls running TSM in a virtual tape environment unless things are configured just so (and maybe even if they are). 1) Is anyone running TSM on z/OS with virtual tape? 2) Has anyone tried it and failed? Best regards, Mark Wheeler 3M Company
Re: Virtual tape libraries
Sorry in the last e-mail I meant you can alter this. TSM_User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The VTL's that I have seen set the defaults to the size estimed to the drive as you suggest but all the ones I've seen you can later this. For intance on our EMC CDL's emulating LTO 2 tape drives we set the volume limit to 50 GB. Further most have a initial setting and incremental growth. Again on the CDL's the default is 5 GB. So even though a VTL volume could grow up to 50 GB it starts up at 5 GB and grows in those increments. So are you sure 2 GB is the limit or is that just the incremental growth? "Wheelock, Michael D" wrote: Hi, Most VTL's that I have encountered emulate a real tape drive (ie. Brand and model) and thus their cartridge size is based on this (ie. 200 GB for LTO1, etc). I would find out why this vtl has this limitation. As to the db growth, others may have a better idea, but I have always found that adding volumes wasn't nearly as big a deal as adding more backed up data (ie. If I bring in 20 more servers with 10,000's each, that overshadows anything else as far as the db is concerned). Michael Wheelock Integris Health -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Evans Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Virtual tape libraries I have been experimenting with a virtual tape library connected to TSM (Windows 2k3 5.1.6.3 server) All seems to work perfectly and TSM is none the wiser. However, The maximum cartridge size in this virtual library is 2GB. I am currently using LTO1 and getting upto 100 times this amount of data on one tape. My database is 56GB and I currently have approx 600 volumes My question is.. if I were to move to a virtual library and had to increase the number of my volumes by up to 10 times What impact would this have on my database ? Thanks in advance Jon Evans Storage Consultant KBR ** This e-mail may contain identifiable health information that is subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is intended to be for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail (reply). __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
Re: Virtual tape libraries
A 2 GB limit seems a bit restrictive, I wonder if that is a file system limit on the VTL. My VTL has no such restriction. When I installed my VTL I did not notice any change in TSM DB size due to an increase in the number of volumes. The amt of data per volume seems minimal. H. Milton Johnson -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Evans Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Virtual tape libraries I have been experimenting with a virtual tape library connected to TSM (Windows 2k3 5.1.6.3 server) All seems to work perfectly and TSM is none the wiser. However, The maximum cartridge size in this virtual library is 2GB. I am currently using LTO1 and getting upto 100 times this amount of data on one tape. My database is 56GB and I currently have approx 600 volumes My question is.. if I were to move to a virtual library and had to increase the number of my volumes by up to 10 times What impact would this have on my database ? Thanks in advance Jon Evans Storage Consultant KBR
Re: Virtual tape libraries
Hi, Most VTL's that I have encountered emulate a real tape drive (ie. Brand and model) and thus their cartridge size is based on this (ie. 200 GB for LTO1, etc). I would find out why this vtl has this limitation. As to the db growth, others may have a better idea, but I have always found that adding volumes wasn't nearly as big a deal as adding more backed up data (ie. If I bring in 20 more servers with 10,000's each, that overshadows anything else as far as the db is concerned). Michael Wheelock Integris Health -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Evans Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Virtual tape libraries I have been experimenting with a virtual tape library connected to TSM (Windows 2k3 5.1.6.3 server) All seems to work perfectly and TSM is none the wiser. However, The maximum cartridge size in this virtual library is 2GB. I am currently using LTO1 and getting upto 100 times this amount of data on one tape. My database is 56GB and I currently have approx 600 volumes My question is.. if I were to move to a virtual library and had to increase the number of my volumes by up to 10 times What impact would this have on my database ? Thanks in advance Jon Evans Storage Consultant KBR ** This e-mail may contain identifiable health information that is subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is intended to be for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail (reply).
Virtual tape libraries
I have been experimenting with a virtual tape library connected to TSM (Windows 2k3 5.1.6.3 server) All seems to work perfectly and TSM is none the wiser. However, The maximum cartridge size in this virtual library is 2GB. I am currently using LTO1 and getting upto 100 times this amount of data on one tape. My database is 56GB and I currently have approx 600 volumes My question is.. if I were to move to a virtual library and had to increase the number of my volumes by up to 10 times What impact would this have on my database ? Thanks in advance Jon Evans Storage Consultant KBR
Re: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries
1) Sepaton states that their VTL is "TSM Certified" 2) When we initially installed our S2100-ES we did have a Fiber adapter communication/compatibility problem. Sepaton's response was: A) To quickly acknowledge the problem. B) As an interim solution Sepaton sent us a S2100-DS that did not have the problem as it uses a different chip set (the ES used a QLogic chip set and the DS used a LSI chip set). C) Recreated the problem in their lab. D) Developed a firmware update to correct the problem. E) Delivered the firmware solution in a timely manner. F) During this period we had regularly scheduled conference calls with Sepaton so that both sides were aware of the status and expectations. We have not had any problems in the period since then, ~6 months ago. In implementing new technologies you have to expect problems, the key is how does the vendor respond? We found Sepaton's response to be professional, above board and competent. H. Milton Johnson -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:52 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries For those of you who have made the leap to Virtual tape libraries: I don't see any of these devices on the TSM hardware support page; do you just base your "TSM support" on the device type that the VTL emulates? And has anyone run into problems with a VTL that have to be resolved by the VTL vendor? Any kind of SCSI errors, or problems other than replacing physical disks? Thanks!
Re: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries
Hi Wanda! You have to make a huge difference between VTS solutions and tape emulators. A tape emulator (like EMC's DL300/700) just emulate a tape device and will leave the data on disk. No problem here for TSM. IBM's VTS and other products (like Fujitsu's CentricStor) store the data on disk and de-stage it to tape later on. The hardware stacks data on tape and reclaims these tapes in the background. Since TSM als has to reclaim his tapes, this will have a very negative impact on tape performance because of fragmentation. You should NOT use such a product for TSM! Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Prather, Wanda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 16:52 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries For those of you who have made the leap to Virtual tape libraries: I don't see any of these devices on the TSM hardware support page; do you just base your "TSM support" on the device type that the VTL emulates? And has anyone run into problems with a VTL that have to be resolved by the VTL vendor? Any kind of SCSI errors, or problems other than replacing physical disks? Thanks! ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries
Hello Wanda, Yes we ran intro some trouble, but nothing the vendor could not fix with a firmware upgrade and some HW replacement... Watch out for discrepancies between compression settings on the VTL and what kind of library you are emulating. We still have some SCSI and read/write errors sporadically, they are investigating the issue. Anyway we set up 2 copy pools on the CDL because we still have some spare space. We where using a EMC CDL 300 VTL. You have to rely on your vendor's supported configurations, if they say that it'll gonna work with tsm version 5.x.x.x on AIX version 5.x.MLx you have to trust them The CDL is not certified yet on TSM 5.3 so we are expecting that to migrate and (hopefully) mitigate the StorageAgent cpu comsumption on some platforms. HTH, Pablito. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:52 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries For those of you who have made the leap to Virtual tape libraries: I don't see any of these devices on the TSM hardware support page; do you just base your "TSM support" on the device type that the VTL emulates? And has anyone run into problems with a VTL that have to be resolved by the VTL vendor? Any kind of SCSI errors, or problems other than replacing physical disks? Thanks!
Questions for people using Virtual tape libraries
For those of you who have made the leap to Virtual tape libraries: I don't see any of these devices on the TSM hardware support page; do you just base your "TSM support" on the device type that the VTL emulates? And has anyone run into problems with a VTL that have to be resolved by the VTL vendor? Any kind of SCSI errors, or problems other than replacing physical disks? Thanks!
Virtual Tape
Good Morning We are considering moving to virtual tape very soon. I would like to poll everyone to see if anyone out there is using it, if so: Whose virtual tape system are you using? What is the OS system? What is the library behind the virtual tape? What kind of performance are you getting? Do you backup any large databases to it? Did you see a performance gain? If so, could you supply examples? Any help will be appreciated! Thanks! -- Terry
Re: virtual tape filesystem?
>>>Since we have TSM and a tape robot, is there a way to define some sort of virtual filesystem on tape so that I can easily move files from one server to another through this tape filesystem (since I don't have enough raw disk to accomplish the moves)? ?? What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? If you want to move files from one client machine A to another client machine B, you can already do that with the TSM client Backup the files on client machine A Start the TSM client on machine B this way: cd into the TSM client directory (program files\tivoli\tsm\baclient on Windows) * dsm -virtualnodename=CLIENTA * You will be prompted for the client nodename and password; overwrite it with a TSM admin id and password * TSM will display the file tree for CLIENTA * Select the files you want to restore * You MUSt specify an output destination, not "restore to original location" That is just the most direct way to do it. You can do the same thing with the command line client, even set it up to run on a schedule! >>>Also, has anyone used the TSM APIs to create a HSM for windows? Yes. The product was developed by OTG, called DiskXtender. OTG was bought by Legato Legato was bought by EMC It may still be available, but I saw one announcement that implied they are dropping support for TSM in 2006. Anybody know for sure about its status? (BTW, I have looked at HSM for Windows for a couple of my sites, and in general, disk is cheaper than any HSM solution EXCEPT for sites that are collecting new data at the rate of so many GB per day so that it is impossible to buy disk fast enough.)
OT: virtual tape filesystem?
Since we have TSM and a tape robot, is there a way to define some sort of virtual filesystem on tape so that I can easily move files from one server to another through this tape filesystem (since I don't have enough raw disk to accomplish the moves)? Also, has anyone used the TSM APIs to create a HSM for windows? Mike
Virtual Tape versus File devices
All, Is there any benefit to either for disc-to-disc backups when using Virtual Tape Libraries versus File devices? Sal Vital Data Systems, LLC
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
True. ... I use the reuse delay on my copypool tapes (same number of days that I keep db backups). But on my onsite tapepool, I use a reuse delay of zero, making them immediately available. It may not be advisable, but with a small library, sometimes you do things that way :( -Original Message- From: Johnson, Milton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library Just to add another fly in the ointment, if you have an aggressive reclamation threshold, say 25%, and a reuse delay of say 5 days, you may end up with a lot more tapes in a pending state then you anticipated. A pending tape is not a scratch tape. H. Milton Johnson -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coats, Jack Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library I agree, think of it as so many tapes. Since they are 'really fast tapes', being on disk, you might consider doing reclaimation at some unusually low number to get expired data out of the way ASAP. If you don't need the space that badly, relax the reclaimation percentage a bit. Instead of starting withe 80 or 60 percent like you would on tapes, you might start with 40 percent and go to 20 percent if you need the space. This still leaves you with about 20% of the library with 'old data', plus your need for at least one or two 'scratch tapes' in the library at a minimum! If emulating LTO1 drives, at 100G each, 62T gives you about 600 (being conservative) volumes. Take away even 2 scratch volumes as a minimum for scratch tapes and subtract 20% of the rest as 'expired data' you still get (598 - 120) 478 volumes at 100G each of real data, or 47.8T on your 62T library. If you know your data, and know you get a real world 30% compression, then it should find close to your 62T of data ( 47.8*1.3=62.14T but that is close with this level of engineering estimate). If you get better compression you really win. Depending on your needs, you could use client compression, or tape drive compression. There are religous camps on both sides, but I suggest you give it a try both ways to see what you really get. ... green with envy ... JC
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
Just to add another fly in the ointment, if you have an aggressive reclamation threshold, say 25%, and a reuse delay of say 5 days, you may end up with a lot more tapes in a pending state then you anticipated. A pending tape is not a scratch tape. H. Milton Johnson -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coats, Jack Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library I agree, think of it as so many tapes. Since they are 'really fast tapes', being on disk, you might consider doing reclaimation at some unusually low number to get expired data out of the way ASAP. If you don't need the space that badly, relax the reclaimation percentage a bit. Instead of starting withe 80 or 60 percent like you would on tapes, you might start with 40 percent and go to 20 percent if you need the space. This still leaves you with about 20% of the library with 'old data', plus your need for at least one or two 'scratch tapes' in the library at a minimum! If emulating LTO1 drives, at 100G each, 62T gives you about 600 (being conservative) volumes. Take away even 2 scratch volumes as a minimum for scratch tapes and subtract 20% of the rest as 'expired data' you still get (598 - 120) 478 volumes at 100G each of real data, or 47.8T on your 62T library. If you know your data, and know you get a real world 30% compression, then it should find close to your 62T of data ( 47.8*1.3=62.14T but that is close with this level of engineering estimate). If you get better compression you really win. Depending on your needs, you could use client compression, or tape drive compression. There are religous camps on both sides, but I suggest you give it a try both ways to see what you really get. ... green with envy ... JC
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
I agree, think of it as so many tapes. Since they are 'really fast tapes', being on disk, you might consider doing reclaimation at some unusually low number to get expired data out of the way ASAP. If you don't need the space that badly, relax the reclaimation percentage a bit. Instead of starting withe 80 or 60 percent like you would on tapes, you might start with 40 percent and go to 20 percent if you need the space. This still leaves you with about 20% of the library with 'old data', plus your need for at least one or two 'scratch tapes' in the library at a minimum! If emulating LTO1 drives, at 100G each, 62T gives you about 600 (being conservative) volumes. Take away even 2 scratch volumes as a minimum for scratch tapes and subtract 20% of the rest as 'expired data' you still get (598 - 120) 478 volumes at 100G each of real data, or 47.8T on your 62T library. If you know your data, and know you get a real world 30% compression, then it should find close to your 62T of data ( 47.8*1.3=62.14T but that is close with this level of engineering estimate). If you get better compression you really win. Depending on your needs, you could use client compression, or tape drive compression. There are religous camps on both sides, but I suggest you give it a try both ways to see what you really get. ... green with envy ... JC
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
(My origional post was rejected . . . I'm resending it) I've been playing around with the same thing although in a completely different context. Although a better person should answer this, I believe the occ is what the TSM server sees - the byte stream into and out of the TSM server. If running client compression, then the server only sees the compressed data stream coming in. If compression at the tape drive, then tsm only see the data stream it sends to the drive, not what the drive does. But . . . this gets more complicated. Remember that the CDL emulates tapes - in all their details. This includes the need for expiration and reclamation. In other words, how full are your tapes? If you are running reclamation at, say, 60%, then you have up to 40% of many tapes unusable until reclamation is run. The CDL will work exactly the same way on it's virtual tape volumes. My understanding is that when a new virtual tape is created It grows the disk space allocated in chuncks (I thought I heard 5gb as a number once), so new tapes only use used space. But full tapes with expired data still use the full tape. So, your calculation might have to be something like . . . . .(thinking out loud . . . high possibility of error) . . . ( total-occupancy + total-expired-but-not-reclaimed-space ) / virtual-tape-drive-compression-ratio + some huge fudge factor. It is very possible with the CDL with growing new tapes by chunks to overcommit the CDL. You could end up with a situation with many TSM tapes that are FILLING, but have the CDL out of disk space. It does have the option to fully allocate the disk space for a virtual tape when the tape is created. Another thing to think about . . . . co-location. I've been thinking about this a lot. If we used s CDL, would I still want to co-locate our primary tape pools? Virtual tapes should mount very quickly. Seeking to the data on a virtual tape should be fast, although I haven't heard how the CDL implements seeks. So, can I do without co-location on the primary tape pool? I don't know . . .needs more thinking and probably testing (if we ever do this). Another thing to think about . . . . which library to emulate and how many. The list of libraries you can pick from to emulate is small. Since a storage pool has to live within one library, the number of virtual tapes in the library has to have the capacity for the storage pool (again, don't forget expired data). The CDL has a limit on the number of virtual volumes, libraries and drives. According to the data sheet from EMC's web site, the CDL supports "Configures up to 32 tape libraries, 256 tape drives, and 2048 cartridges with a single disk library system . . ". You are going to have to juggle your pool sizes, the library size and the number of virtual tapes. Much to think about. . . . . . . Rick - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
In thinking about my previous reply to you, I thought I should say this . . . . My big problem when I first started thinking about a virtual tape library was in thinking of it as a big disk. It's NOT . . .It is really a tape library (or several tape libraries) with tape drives and cartridges. Everything you know and understand about TSM tape processing applies. Think if it as a tape library replacement, not replacing a library for disk. Look at your current library(s) and think of how many slots you have, how many tapes you have, how full are the tapes, how aggressive is your reclamation, what's your reclaim %. Then, what library, number of slots, number of tapes, are you going to replace it with. Just using the total occupancy of the TSM server is the same as packing all the back'ed up data onto all new tapes and filling them all 100% full. I can guarantee that that does NOT describe anyone TSM tape library. In other words, size a tape library, not a disk system. Rick "Thach, Kevin G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OM> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Sizing for a virtual tape library Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 09/01/2004 10:04 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Greetings- We are looking at purchasing an EMC CDL (virtual tape library), and I'm trying to figure out exactly how much disk I'm going to need to meet my requirements. select sum(physical_mb) from occupancy where stgpool_name='' Gives me ~62TB. Is that number the compressed value, or the actual value? In other words, assuming I do no compression with the new setup, would I be able to get by with ~62TB of disk? Or would I need more? I've read that compression is transparent to TSM since I'm doing compression on my tape drives, so that number should represent what was sent to the drives, correct? It should therefore be the actual size of the data before compression, right? I did a search and found some past threads about this, but they confused me even more! =) If someone could set me straight, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Kevin - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Re: Sizing for a virtual tape library
I've been playing around with the same thing although in a completely
different context.
Although a better person should answer this, I believe the occ is what the
TSM server sees - the byte stream into and out of the TSM server. If
running client compression, then the server only sees the compressed data
stream coming in. If compression at the tape drive, then tsm only see the
data stream it sends to the drive, not what the drive does.
But . . . this gets more complicated.
Remember that the CDL emulates tapes - in all their details. This includes
the need for expiration and reclamation. In other words, how full are your
tapes? If you are running reclamation at, say, 60%, then you have up to
40% of many tapes unusable until reclamation is run. The CDL will work
exactly the same way on it's virtual tape volumes. My understanding is
that when a new virtual tape is created It grows the disk space allocated
in chuncks (I thought I heard 5gb as a number once), so new tapes only use
used space. But full tapes with expired data still use the full tape.
So, your calculation might have to be something like . . . . .(thinking out
loud . . . high possibility of error) . . . ( total-occupancy +
total-expired-but-not-reclaimed-space ) /
virtual-tape-drive-compression-ratio + some huge fudge factor.
It is very possible with the CDL with growing new tapes by chunks to
overcommit the CDL. You could end up with a situation with many TSM tapes
that are FILLING, but have the CDL out of disk space. It does have the
option to fully allocate the disk space for a virtual tape when the tape is
created.
Another thing to think about . . . . co-location. I've been thinking about
this a lot. If we used s CDL, would I still want to co-locate our primary
tape pools? Virtual tapes should mount very quickly. Seeking to the data
on a virtual tape should be fast, although I haven't heard how the CDL
implements seeks. So, can I do without co-location on the primary tape
pool? I don't know . . .needs more thinking and probably testing (if we
ever do this).
Another thing to think about . . . . which library to emulate and how
many. The list of libraries you can pick from to emulate is small. Since
a storage pool has to live within one library, the number of virtual tapes
in the library has to have the capacity for the storage pool (again, don't
forget expired data). The CDL has a limit on the number of virtual
volumes, libraries and drives. According to the data sheet from EMC's web
site, the CDL supports "Configures up to 32 tape libraries, 256 tape
drives, and 2048 cartridges with a single disk library system . . ". You
are going to have to juggle your pool sizes, the library size and the
number of virtual tapes.
Much to think about. . . . . . .
Rick
"Thach, Kevin G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OM> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Sizing for a virtual tape
library
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
09/01/2004 10:04
AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
Greetings-
We are looking at purchasing an EMC CDL (virtual tape library), and I'm
trying to figure out exactly how much disk I'm going to need to meet my
requirements.
select sum(physical_mb) from occupancy where stgpool_name=''
Gives me ~62TB. Is that number the compressed value, or the actual
value? In other words, assuming I do no compression with the new setup,
would I be able to get by with ~62TB of disk? Or would I need more?
I've read that compression is transparent to TSM since I'm doing
compression on my tape drives, so that number should represent what was
sent to the drives, correct? It should therefore be the actual size of
the data before compression, right?
I did a search and found some past threads about this, but they confused
me even more! =)
If someone could set me straight, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Kevin
-
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
and delete the original message.
Sizing for a virtual tape library
Greetings- We are looking at purchasing an EMC CDL (virtual tape library), and I'm trying to figure out exactly how much disk I'm going to need to meet my requirements. select sum(physical_mb) from occupancy where stgpool_name='' Gives me ~62TB. Is that number the compressed value, or the actual value? In other words, assuming I do no compression with the new setup, would I be able to get by with ~62TB of disk? Or would I need more? I've read that compression is transparent to TSM since I'm doing compression on my tape drives, so that number should represent what was sent to the drives, correct? It should therefore be the actual size of the data before compression, right? I did a search and found some past threads about this, but they confused me even more! =) If someone could set me straight, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Kevin
Re: Virtual Tape Library
I tried using the IBM 3494-B18 VTS with TSM on the zSeries (z/OS) and decided it was not a good fit. TSM recalls partially fill tapes to finish filling it. The recall time was about 4 minutes. Reclaim processing took forever to bring in reclaimable volumes. Restores took forever with double recalls of volumes. I am much happier using native 3590 drives. -Original Message- From: Coats, Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone tried using one with TSM? I am mainly interested in a Windows environment, but other experiences would be very intersting? Vendor? Size? Price? Ease of Setup? Ease of Use? Operational considerations? Opinions? TIA ... Jack
Virtual Tape Library
Anyone tried using one with TSM? I am mainly interested in a Windows environment, but other experiences would be very intersting? Vendor? Size? Price? Ease of Setup? Ease of Use? Operational considerations? Opinions? TIA ... Jack
Re: TSM backups to Virtual Tape
> The reality is VTS > runs ADSM under the covers, at least that is what the tape drives say. AND ! . would you want a system that's already doing VTS-like logic be using VTS?? ... joe.f. Joseph A Faracchio, Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley Private mail on any topic should be directed to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (510)642-7638 (w) (209)483-JOEF (M) 5633 99 days until retirement. A. On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Seay, Paul wrote: > The place where virtual makes sense is if you need a lot of tape > drives/tapes and the tape fill is less than 50%. TSM generally fills tapes > up. The issues with DR below are always a consideration. "Appropriate" is > the key word. > > The case that I can think of is when the VTS and VSM can support SAN managed > tape. Under that scenario you may start thinking about onsite backup sets > or something like that as an example to use VTS/VSM for. The reality is VTS > runs ADSM under the covers, at least that is what the tape drives say. > > Unless some major benefit can be achieved carefully consider what you are > doing and why. > > -Original Message- > From: James, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TSM backups to Virtual Tape
The place where virtual makes sense is if you need a lot of tape drives/tapes and the tape fill is less than 50%. TSM generally fills tapes up. The issues with DR below are always a consideration. "Appropriate" is the key word. The case that I can think of is when the VTS and VSM can support SAN managed tape. Under that scenario you may start thinking about onsite backup sets or something like that as an example to use VTS/VSM for. The reality is VTS runs ADSM under the covers, at least that is what the tape drives say. Unless some major benefit can be achieved carefully consider what you are doing and why. -Original Message- From: James, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TSM backups to Virtual Tape We have been analyzing the possible uses of Virtual Tape, either the IBM VTS or the STK VSM. We are being very careful to select only data that is appropriate for virtual storage. "Appropriate," in this context, is defined as: 1. Data that is not required for disaster recovery. If you send your data to virtual storage, then you must have an identical virtual storage system available at your DR site. You would also need either the originals or duplicates of your virtual tape backups, plus tape backups of your virtual catalog. And even if you have the tapes and the virtual tape catalog, you will not have the data that existed only in the virtual system's buffer. 2. Data sets below a certain size, tentatively 1.6 gigabytes. The majority of data sets created are small, and the virtual system can help with this. If a data set is too large, it will go to the virtual system buffer, but then need to be written off to tape almost immediately. TSM gathers backups of many files, compresses them, and packages them as larger files. Thus you are using virtual, a good solution for many small data sets, for the wrong purpose. Virtual storage is a good tool when properly applied, but is not a cure-all. If it is not restricted to specific uses, it can cause many problems. -Original Message- From: MC Matt Cooper (2838) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: David, I remember reading in this list group that using a VTS with TSM is a very bad idea. I believe the issue was TSM data on disk being moved to the VSMs Disk (cache), overloading it. I would suggest looking through the list servers archives at http://search.adsm.org/ Matt -Original Message- From: David Browne. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I have three TSM servers running TSM 4.1.4 on OS390/MVS 2.10. Currently I write my onsite backups to dasd and then migrate the information to tape (3490E 36 track) for my onsite backups. My Storage Administer is wanting to move our onsite tape backups to a VSM. Our VSM is an STK Virtual Tape Manager and we are running HSC 4.1. We use SMS to control what datasets are selected to go to the VSM. Currently my TSM tapes are 3490E and the VSM is configured to look like a 3490 tape drive and 3490E tapes. Can I just let SMS send the mounts to the VSM? Has anyone done this? Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
TSM backups to Virtual Tape
We have been analyzing the possible uses of Virtual Tape, either the IBM VTS or the STK VSM. We are being very careful to select only data that is appropriate for virtual storage. "Appropriate," in this context, is defined as: 1. Data that is not required for disaster recovery. If you send your data to virtual storage, then you must have an identical virtual storage system available at your DR site. You would also need either the originals or duplicates of your virtual tape backups, plus tape backups of your virtual catalog. And even if you have the tapes and the virtual tape catalog, you will not have the data that existed only in the virtual system's buffer. 2. Data sets below a certain size, tentatively 1.6 gigabytes. The majority of data sets created are small, and the virtual system can help with this. If a data set is too large, it will go to the virtual system buffer, but then need to be written off to tape almost immediately. TSM gathers backups of many files, compresses them, and packages them as larger files. Thus you are using virtual, a good solution for many small data sets, for the wrong purpose. Virtual storage is a good tool when properly applied, but is not a cure-all. If it is not restricted to specific uses, it can cause many problems. -Original Message- From: MC Matt Cooper (2838) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: David, I remember reading in this list group that using a VTS with TSM is a very bad idea. I believe the issue was TSM data on disk being moved to the VSMs Disk (cache), overloading it. I would suggest looking through the list servers archives at http://search.adsm.org/ Matt -Original Message- From: David Browne. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I have three TSM servers running TSM 4.1.4 on OS390/MVS 2.10. Currently I write my onsite backups to dasd and then migrate the information to tape (3490E 36 track) for my onsite backups. My Storage Administer is wanting to move our onsite tape backups to a VSM. Our VSM is an STK Virtual Tape Manager and we are running HSC 4.1. We use SMS to control what datasets are selected to go to the VSM. Currently my TSM tapes are 3490E and the VSM is configured to look like a 3490 tape drive and 3490E tapes. Can I just let SMS send the mounts to the VSM? Has anyone done this? Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
