Re: space reclamation on a server storage pool?

2003-11-08 Thread Neil Schofield
John

Zlatko is right. Since only TSM1 knows what is on the virtual volume, only
TSM1 can perform reclamation of the virtual volume.

The TSM designers then had a design choice about how this is acomplished.
The obvious way is for reclamation of the virtual volume to be accomplished
by mounting the virtual volume to be reclaimed on TSM1 as input, along with
a scratch virtual volume for the output. This involves two physical tape
mounts on TSM2, but crucially the data would have to pass over the network
from TSM2 to TSM1 when it was read and then from TSM1 to TSM2 when it was
written.

The way it is actually implemented avoids this duplication. TSM uses the
fact that the virtual volume is a copy storage pool volume and therefore
all the data containted within it will also typically be located on a
primary storage pool volume held locally on TSM1. By using this data
instead of the data held on the virtual volume, only the writing of the
data is performed over the network.

So the process has actually been optimised to reduce network utilisation.

However, it should be remembered that reclamation of the virtual volume
alone is useless without also separately performing reclamtion of  the
physical volumes on TSM2 in the way that you describe.

Going slightly off-topic, it is debatable whether using the primary storage
pool volumes as source for the reclamation is optimal in most real-world
scenarios. Since the primary storage pool (physical) volumes will typically
be co-located and the copy storage pool (virtual) volumes typically won't
be, the 50% reduction in network utilisation is more than negated by the
increased number of physical tape mounts required. That is to say the mount
of a virtual volume as source typically requires only one physical tape
mount on the destination server, whereas to mount the physical volumes
required from the primary storage pool requires as many tape mounts as
there are nodes whose data is contained in the virtual volume (assuming
co-location at the node level).



Having said that, if there are a large number of virtual volumes to be
reclaimed, TSM will optimise the tape mounts from the primary storage pool
to ensure each physical volume is only mounted once.



With all that said, I've spent five years struggling to get my head round
TSM server-to-server comms and now we're just about to rip it out in favour
of SAN-based off-siting of data with library-sharing based on Gresham EDT
and ACSLS!

Neil Schofield
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.




Visit our web site to find out about our award winning
Cool Schools community campaign at
http://www.yorkshirewater.com/yorkshirewater/schools.html
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may also be legally
privileged. The contents are intended for recipient only and are subject
to the legal notice available at http://www.keldagroup.com/email.htm
Yorkshire Water Services Limited
Registered Office Western House Halifax Road Bradford BD6 2SZ
Registered in England and Wales No 2366682


Re: space reclamation on a server storage pool?

2003-11-08 Thread Zlatko Krastev
Because only the DB of TSM1 knows what is in that virtual volume. From
TSM2's perspective this is single file and that's it. If that file was
Oracle data file, would you expect TSM to know what is the content of it?!

Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant






John C Dury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
08.10.2003 07:31
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
        Subject:    space reclamation on a server storage pool?


We have 2 systems. TSM1 and TSM2. TSM2 is used solely as an offsite system
to backup our primary tape storage pool on TSM1. When I run reclamation on
the server storage pool on TSM1, the process requests a mount on TSM2 and
a
mount on TSM1. It appears to be copying data from the mount on TSM1 to
TSM2. Why wouldn't reclamation mount 2 tapes on TSM2 and copy the data
that
way instead of through the network which is going to be much slower.
Essentially it seems like it is going to copy the exact same data from
TSM1
to TSM2 two times because it gets copied once during the BACKUP STG
command, and then again during the space reclamation of the server storage
pool. This seems like a great waste of time when the exact same data
should
already be on the TSM2 system and could be moved directly from 1 tape to
another where it would be considerably faster.
Does this make sense? Why would it be done this way?
John


space reclamation on a server storage pool?

2003-10-07 Thread John C Dury
We have 2 systems. TSM1 and TSM2. TSM2 is used solely as an offsite system
to backup our primary tape storage pool on TSM1. When I run reclamation on
the server storage pool on TSM1, the process requests a mount on TSM2 and a
mount on TSM1. It appears to be copying data from the mount on TSM1 to
TSM2. Why wouldn't reclamation mount 2 tapes on TSM2 and copy the data that
way instead of through the network which is going to be much slower.
Essentially it seems like it is going to copy the exact same data from TSM1
to TSM2 two times because it gets copied once during the BACKUP STG
command, and then again during the space reclamation of the server storage
pool. This seems like a great waste of time when the exact same data should
already be on the TSM2 system and could be moved directly from 1 tape to
another where it would be considerably faster.
Does this make sense? Why would it be done this way?
John