> Seems that every action has some re-action. Sounds like Raibeck's Rule #37: "There is no free lunch" :-)
Regard, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTivoliStorageManager.html The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> wrote on 2006-04-25 13:40:27: > Thanks Richard, et al, > > I thought the default RESOURCEUTIL was also the minimal value, so I > don't think we could lower that any more than it already is. Using > MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP is a good idea, as is using 'nice' to deprioritize. > > We have actually been working hard to improve TSM performance so that > we can restore data more quickly. Seems that every action has some > re-action. Reducing the TSM Server as a bottleneck serves to move > the bottleneck to the client, where it can interfere with other applications. > > ..Paul > > At 02:37 PM 4/25/2006, Richard Sims wrote: > >Certainly, "de-tuning" the TSM backups will reduce the impact, where > >the most obvious tactic is to minimize RESOURceutilization. And you > >can get more drastic via MEMORYEFficientbackup Yes. Depending upon > >the file population, the influx of the Active files list at the > >beginning of an incremental will always have a "fixed" impact. Beyond > >that, you can deprioritize the TSM client process at the OS level. > > > -- > Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757 > Manager, Storage Systems Fx: 607-255-8521 > 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
