Hi Jordi,
Thanks, yes it is a disk pool:
Protect: TSM01>q stg BACKUP_DISK f=d
Storage Pool Name: BACKUP_DISK
Storage Pool Type: Primary
Device Class Name: DISK
Storage Type: DEVCLASS
…
Next Storage Pool: BACKUP_ONSTAPE
So it is a disk pool … though it is made up of multiple disk files …
/tsmdisk/stgpool/tsmins- BACKUP_DISK DISK 200.0 G 0.0
On-Line
t3/bkup_diskvol01.dsm
/tsmdisk/stgpool/tsmins- BACKUP_DISK DISK 200.0 G 0.0
On-Line
t3/bkup_diskvol02.dsm
/tsmdisk/stgpool/tsmins- BACKUP_DISK DISK 200.0 G 0.0
On-Line
t3/bkup_diskvol03.dsm
Will look into the FILE pool as this sounds like it might be less single
threaded than now 😊
Thanks
Simon
From: <[email protected]> on behalf of
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Reply to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 4 January 2021 at 13:36
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Protect and disk pools
Simon,
which kind of storage pool are you using, DISK or FILE ? I understand DISK pool
from your mail. DISK pool does not behave the same as FILE pool.
DISK pool is limited by the number of nodes or MIGProcess setting (the minimum
of both) as the document states. Using proxy helps you backup in parallel from
multiple nodes to the stg pool but from Protect perspective it is a single
node. Even multiple nodes are sending they run "asnodename" so single node from
Protect perspective.
If using FILE pool, you can define the number of volumes within the FILE pool
and when migrating to tape, it will migrate each volume in parallel with the
limit of MIGProcess setting. So it would be the minimum of #volumes and
MIGProcess value.
I know more deep technical skills in Protect are on this mailing list so feel
free to add something or correct me.
Best Regards,
--
Jordi Caubet Serrabou
IBM Storage Client Technical Specialist (IBM Spain)
Ext. Phone: (+34) 679.79.17.84 (internal 55834)
E-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
wrote: -----
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
From: Simon Thompson
Sent by:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Date: 01/04/2021 01:21PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Protect and disk pools
Hi All,
We use Spectrum Protect (TSM) to backup our Scale filesystems. We have the
backup setup to use multiple nodes with the PROXY node function turned on (and
to some extent also use multiple target servers).
This all feels like it is nice and parallel, on the TSM servers, we have disk
pools for any “small” files to drop into (I think we set anything smaller than
20GB) to prevent lots of small files stalling tape drive writes.
Whilst digging into why we have slow backups at times, we found that the disk
pool empties with a single thread (one drive). And looking at the docs:
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/concurrent-migration-processes-and-constraints
This implies that we are limited to the number of client nodes stored in the
pool. i.e. because we have one node and PROXY nodes, we are essentially limited
to a single thread streaming out of the disk pool when full.
Have we understood this correctly as if so, this appears to make the whole
purpose of PROXY nodes sort of pointless if you have lots of small files. Or is
there some other setting we should be looking at to increase the number of
threads when the disk pool is emptying? (The disk pool itself has Migration
Processes: 6)
Thanks
Simon
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Salvo indicado de otro modo más arriba / Unless stated otherwise above:
International Business Machines, S.A.
Santa Hortensia, 26-28, 28002 Madrid
Registro Mercantil de Madrid; Folio 1; Tomo 1525; Hoja M-28146
CIF A28-010791
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
