Re: migration vs move data
Hi Rick
Can you sent the script to the forum , like to see .
Regards
Robert
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard
Mochnaczewski
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:06 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] migration vs move data
Hi Rick,
I'm just about to write such a script ( moving data from a 3494 library to a
SL8500 ). Can you send me a copy of it ?
Rich
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Richard Rhodes
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:51 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] migration vs move data
When I moved our primary pools from 3494/3590's to 3584/3592's, I used
movedata.
I found the movedat was much easier to control the process. I coded a
script that would vary
the number of movedata's running concurrently depending upon the number of
free/available tape drives. During the day It would run 3-4 movedata's.
while during
thenight I had 6-8 running. Our problem was the pools were very big
(several thousand
3494/3590 tapes), and we wanted to migrate the data asap. If your pools
are not
very big, the it's probably not worth the effort to take control via
movedata's.
Rick
Keith Arbogast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU> To
Sent by: "ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Dist Stor cc
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU> migration vs move data
02/26/2008 10:17
AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
What would be the consequential differences between using migration
versus using 'move data' to transfer backup files from one primary
tape pool to another? I see that with 'move data' I would specify
volumes names myself, whereas migration would pick the volumes to
move. Are there other differences that would favor one technique over
the other? A difference in throughput rate would be especially
interesting.
The files are moving between data centers, and are now in virtual
volumes. The target tape pool consists of physical 3592 cartridges.
This is all running on RHEL 4, TSM 5.4.0.3, over a 10 Gb network link.
Thank you,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University
-
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.
Standard Life : 175 ans au coeur de nos vies
Standard Life: Part of our lives for 175 years
Re: migration vs move data
Hi Rick,
I'm just about to write such a script ( moving data from a 3494 library to a
SL8500 ). Can you send me a copy of it ?
Rich
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Richard Rhodes
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:51 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] migration vs move data
When I moved our primary pools from 3494/3590's to 3584/3592's, I used
movedata.
I found the movedat was much easier to control the process. I coded a
script that would vary
the number of movedata's running concurrently depending upon the number of
free/available tape drives. During the day It would run 3-4 movedata's.
while during
thenight I had 6-8 running. Our problem was the pools were very big
(several thousand
3494/3590 tapes), and we wanted to migrate the data asap. If your pools
are not
very big, the it's probably not worth the effort to take control via
movedata's.
Rick
Keith Arbogast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU> To
Sent by: "ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Dist Stor cc
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU> migration vs move data
02/26/2008 10:17
AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
What would be the consequential differences between using migration
versus using 'move data' to transfer backup files from one primary
tape pool to another? I see that with 'move data' I would specify
volumes names myself, whereas migration would pick the volumes to
move. Are there other differences that would favor one technique over
the other? A difference in throughput rate would be especially
interesting.
The files are moving between data centers, and are now in virtual
volumes. The target tape pool consists of physical 3592 cartridges.
This is all running on RHEL 4, TSM 5.4.0.3, over a 10 Gb network link.
Thank you,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University
-
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.
Standard Life : 175 ans au coeur de nos vies
Standard Life: Part of our lives for 175 years
Re: migration vs move data
When I moved our primary pools from 3494/3590's to 3584/3592's, I used
movedata.
I found the movedat was much easier to control the process. I coded a
script that would vary
the number of movedata's running concurrently depending upon the number of
free/available tape drives. During the day It would run 3-4 movedata's.
while during
thenight I had 6-8 running. Our problem was the pools were very big
(several thousand
3494/3590 tapes), and we wanted to migrate the data asap. If your pools
are not
very big, the it's probably not worth the effort to take control via
movedata's.
Rick
Keith Arbogast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU> To
Sent by: "ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Dist Stor cc
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU> migration vs move data
02/26/2008 10:17
AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
What would be the consequential differences between using migration
versus using 'move data' to transfer backup files from one primary
tape pool to another? I see that with 'move data' I would specify
volumes names myself, whereas migration would pick the volumes to
move. Are there other differences that would favor one technique over
the other? A difference in throughput rate would be especially
interesting.
The files are moving between data centers, and are now in virtual
volumes. The target tape pool consists of physical 3592 cartridges.
This is all running on RHEL 4, TSM 5.4.0.3, over a 10 Gb network link.
Thank you,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University
-
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.
migration vs move data
What would be the consequential differences between using migration versus using 'move data' to transfer backup files from one primary tape pool to another? I see that with 'move data' I would specify volumes names myself, whereas migration would pick the volumes to move. Are there other differences that would favor one technique over the other? A difference in throughput rate would be especially interesting. The files are moving between data centers, and are now in virtual volumes. The target tape pool consists of physical 3592 cartridges. This is all running on RHEL 4, TSM 5.4.0.3, over a 10 Gb network link. Thank you, Keith Arbogast Indiana University
