Hi, I think I remember having read something about stgp on disk with a
devclass of type FILE (sequential). Sending the dir's into such a seq stgp
would result in much faster recl and backups stgp.
Yours,
Ren� LAMBELET
NESTEC SA
GLOBE - Global Business Excellence
Central Support Center
SD/ESN
Av. Nestl� 55 CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland)
t�l +41 (0)21 924 35 43 fax +41 (0)21 924 13 69 local
K4-104
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee
and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rushforth, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,5. August 2003 21:16
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reclamation of Copy Dirs
Actually a sequential access storage pool like Todd created would not have
the slow problem. The problem was only with Disk stgpools. (So that is the
other workaround if you don't want to upgrade to 5.1.5.2).
Tim Rushforth
City of Winnipeg
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 5, 2003 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reclamation of Copy Dirs
...
>After all that, the reclamation is going at a better rate. I think it is
>because the one 1GB disk volume containing all of the directory objects
>was just too resource intensive to scan. The 10MB volumes are much faster
>to scan through. Personally, it doesn't make sense that a random access
>volume would have that much trouble finding the file, but I had read other
>posts with problems similar to mine, so I made those changes.
Todd - I believe that the major problem is that, with long-lived small data
in Disk type storage pools that fragmentation over time makes for a
lot of extra overhead - just gets worse and worse. It's not something one
would expect, living daily with OS file systems which do just fine with
many, many files. It may be that non-hierarchical organization is at play,
making for performance issues when the stgpool gets "holey" over time.
Richard Sims, BU
