Hi, We have implemented TSM on a fastt700. What I would suggest you do is get the system installed and do some real world performance testing to validate any configuration you are looking at. This is approximately what we have done:
2 Member Raid 1 for system disk (AIX 5.2 can boot from the SAN) 2 Member Raid 1 for logs 5 Member Raid 5 for DB 9 Member Raid 5 for Disk Pool 9 Member Raid 5 for Disk Pool Not all of the space is completely allocated to the filesystems here, but it give you the picture. We did quite a bit of testing to make sure that the Raid 5 for the disk pools would not slow us down. During our testing we were able to write to these disks (bot simultaneously) at 50MB/s each. This was plenty of validation for me that the disk configuration could pretty much handle whatever we threw at it. So far (we have been live for 4 months and are ratcheting up the number of systems we back up) we are doing extremely well. The system backs up over 250GB/night (which isn't a lot, but it is increasingly rapidly). This is spread across approximately two hours (to disk) then another two hours or so to tape (IBM 3584 Lib with 8/FC attached LTO1's). There is a lot of room to grow with that as the backup to tape is currently limited by fact that of the 250GB approximately 150GB comes from a single host (so when you do the stgpool backup it can't parallelize beyond a certain point). One caution however is to be sure and implement zoning today. Don't wait to implement this until you need to. We have waited a while on our Compaq SAN equipment and are having to retro the zoning in. Also As to the question about mirrored database volumes, I cannot say one way or another. I have seen posts that suggest this is a problem. I have also worked with databases for quite a while (oracle, sybase and mssql) and never seen this issue with them. So either whatever flavor of database IBM uses is susceptible to this issue or it was more of a problem with older hardware. I have currently not setup this system to mirror the database volumes in software. The issue with the corruption of the database volume was not correctable with hardware raid. Other info: System: 7026-M80 (8 500MHZ CPU's, 8GB RAM) SAN: IBM rebranded 2Gb brocade switches TSM Version: 5.2.0.1 Michael Wheelock Integris Health of Oklahoma -----Original Message----- From: Leonard Lauria [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: opinions on disk partitioning I would like to get opinions on disk configurations for a new platform. I am installing my TSM server on an aix platform, with FASTT700 disk. The FASTT700 has (28) 73 GB, 15K disks, of which 23 are available for this application. I am considering the following 2 setups, but please feel free to make other suggestions! 1) 12 drives for the TSM DB, raid 10. I only need 100 GB, plus room to grow, perhaps double, so this wastes a lot of space, but I get needed spindles. Remaining 11 drives would be Raid 5, and exported as a single LUN which would have 4 logical volumes for: 570 GB disk pool 200 GB disk pool 20 GB disk pool 13 GB TSM log 2) 8 drives for the TSM DB, raid 5. I only need 100 GB, plus room to grow, perhaps double, so this is less space, but fewer spindles and no mirror. Remaining 15 drives would be Raid 5, and exported as a single LUN which would have 4 logical volumes for: 500 GB disk pool 500 GB disk pool 82 GB disk pool 13 GB TSM log #2 gives me more spindles for the disk pools, by using only raid5 for the database partitions. Another concern is having the disk pools compete with each other on the same disks. Would it be better to have fewer spindles per disk pools, but have disk pools seperate from each other, or all the disk pools spread over the same larger number of spindles? Also, I have had a lot of conflicting information regarding TSM doing mirrors of the DB and LOG versus letting the FASTT hardware do raid protection. It seems the hardware implementation would be faster, and just as safe, as letting TSM do mirrors...not to mention allowing me to spread things out a bit more. Any opinions on my options? Thanks! leonard 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).
