I would say if you think you might grow it, start with 4 LUNs, not 6. I think I heard somewhere that fewer DB volumes are better and too many can be a problem. I have no experience with this. Most of our databases are on 2-3 volumes.
At 02:47 PM 4/17/2013, James R Owen wrote: >Seeking your experienced advice or reasoned opinion: > >We have a TSMv5.5.7 service with very fragmented 500GB DB @ 76% utilized >but only 8% reduceable. As soon as possible we will start TSMv5->v6 >migration to new 1200GB DB and 200GB Log. Another TSMv6 service with >800GB DB @ ~50% utilized performs well using 4 * 200GB LUNs = PVs = LVs >= JFS2 FileSpaces (with 1 each per 200GB LUN on fast NetApp disk.) > >For this TSMv5->v6.3.3 conversion, using same fast disk, which TSMv6 DB >config is better practice? > > a) 6 * 200GB LUNs (LUN = PV = LV = FileSpace) > b) 4 * 300GB LUNs ... > >We might eventually need to incrementally grow this TSMv6 DB up to twice >initial size adding similar sized LUNs! > >-- >jim.o...@yale.edu (w#203.432.6693, c#203.494.9201, h#203.387.3030) -- Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / Infrastructure Em: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
