Thank's all for the reply's, it's not a log/db/diskpool contrain issue because I was making a backup of a single 150GB SQL database, that should not result in many iop's to the log/db. I am going to try the filepool thing with some private volumes that I can migrate during the housekeeping to see if this works. I do find it a little strange that the option would be off for fileclass storagepools and on for disk storagepools but if this works it's a workable solution, I can't swap out the raidcontroller for a faster one at the moment and more cache won't help if that's disabled so we'll see.
I'll keep you guy's posted. On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Michael Prix <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > that's what IBM told us. > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Michael Prix > > > On 02/11/2013 01:46 PM, Stefan Folkerts wrote: > >> Thanks Michael, so the use of the filepool storagepool type does not set >> the O_SYNC flag (and therefor uses the cache on the raid controller) but a >> normal diskpool does (and therefor doesn't use the cache)? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Michael Prix <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> I assume with diskpool you mean primary pools devicetype disk. >>> Create a filepool on the internal disks and measure performance against >>> it. >>> If this is as expected, the internal RAID-controller honors the >>> O_SYNC-writes TSM uses for diskpools and in this case the cache of the >>> RAID-controller is not used. >>> >>> -- >>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards >>> >>> Michael Prix >>> >>> >>> On 02/11/2013 11:08 AM, Stefan Folkerts wrote: >>> >>> Hi Chavdar, >>>> >>>> If it would be the raidcontroller I would expect a CIFS copy to be slow >>>> as >>>> well but it is not, a LAN based CIFS copy to the same disk the diskpool >>>> is >>>> on is fast, the disk is only slow when using it with TSM. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chavdar Cholev < >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>>> **wrote: >>>>> >>>> Hi Stefan, >>>> >>>>> if it is HP server check to you have cache battery on RAID (if any) I >>>>> had simmilar issue, when I do backup form disk to LTO it was ~80-90 >>>>> MB/s, but when nodes baked up to this disk stg it was ~8-10 MB/s even >>>>> I have etherchannel 2x1Gbps ... >>>>> Regards >>>>> Chavdar >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Folkerts >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am running into a strange performance issue at a small TSM site. >>>>>> They have an new intel based TSM server running Windows 2008 R2 >>>>>> running >>>>>> >>>>>> TSM >>>>> >>>>> 5.5 (don't ask) with enough CPU and memory to run the server 4 times >>>>>> >>>>>> over. >>>>> >>>>> It has 2 disks in raid 1 for the TSM log, 4 disks in raid 10 for the >>>>>> TSM >>>>>> database and 5 disks (all 10k) for the diskpool in raid 5. >>>>>> The server has 2 1Gb/s ethernet ports in a 2Gb/s LACP channel. >>>>>> >>>>>> A normal CIFS copy to the server raid 5 filesystem loads the interface >>>>>> up >>>>>> to 25%. >>>>>> A TSM backup to LTO (I believe LTO4) loads the interface up to about >>>>>> the >>>>>> same load. >>>>>> However a TSM backup to the diskpool only get the load up to 5-6%. >>>>>> I have tried a default dsmserv.opt and dsm.opt and 'tuned' ones. >>>>>> Multiple clients or just one, MSSQL or fileserver data, nothing >>>>>> matters, >>>>>> >>>>>> as >>>>> >>>>> soon as I go to the diskpool the performance is gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even a local backup to 127.0.0.1 is slow to the diskpool but fast to >>>>>> >>>>>> tape. >>>>> >>>>> I did filesystem checks, recreated the filesystem, swapped the >>>>>> raidcontroller (that was done before performance checks and seems a >>>>>> bit >>>>>> silly now) but I can't find the issue. >>>>>> There are no errors in Windows or TSM, everything is just fine but >>>>>> very >>>>>> very slow. >>>>>> I recreated the diskpool volumes one by one to make sure there is no >>>>>> >>>>>> weird >>>>> >>>>> fragmentation going on, that didn't change anything, even with a >>>>>> single >>>>>> 1Gb/s connection the speed is still many times faster to tape than it >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> the diskpool but a filecopy via CIFS to the same disk is fast. >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anybody ever seen this before? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Stefan >>>>>> >>>>>>
