Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
The estimated capacity shown in Q STGPOOL output is pretty much useless/misleading for sequential pools, as it's based on the MAXSCRATCH value for the pool, plus other factors. See the admin ref pages for Q STGPOOL output field descriptions. W -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:39 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for response. I agree with you totally, but estimated capacity is wrong in TSM for many primary pools allocated on Data Domain VTL. For example, for 128 tapes with size 64GB (max 8192GB) it gives Estimated Capacity: 18,191 G. Any comments? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner, Andy Sent: 07 08 2014 12:42 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL One note to consider with DataDomain. The tape has no compression from the TSM perspective. If you create 100GB tapes, the estimated capacity in TSM should be 100GB. TSM will store 100GB on a tape. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:08 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for RFE and information. I will try to modify device classes. Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: 06 08 2014 9:30 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or
Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
I have a storage pool on VTL with Data Domain that shows numbers in the opposite direction. My tapes are define as 50 GB each and 30 tapes in the pool, therefore should hold 1.5 TB. The estimated capacity is 105 GB. Data domain reports the tapes as full after storing 500 to 800 MB on the tape. This storage pool only contains the Windows DIRM MC management class data. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 9:39 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for response. I agree with you totally, but estimated capacity is wrong in TSM for many primary pools allocated on Data Domain VTL. For example, for 128 tapes with size 64GB (max 8192GB) it gives Estimated Capacity: 18,191 G. Any comments? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner, Andy Sent: 07 08 2014 12:42 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL One note to consider with DataDomain. The tape has no compression from the TSM perspective. If you create 100GB tapes, the estimated capacity in TSM should be 100GB. TSM will store 100GB on a tape. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:08 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for RFE and information. I will try to modify device classes. Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: 06 08 2014 9:30 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s
Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
Thank you very much for RFE and information. I will try to modify device classes. Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: 06 08 2014 9:30 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software.
Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
One note to consider with DataDomain. The tape has no compression from the TSM perspective. If you create 100GB tapes, the estimated capacity in TSM should be 100GB. TSM will store 100GB on a tape. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:08 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for RFE and information. I will try to modify device classes. Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: 06 08 2014 9:30 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software.
Re: Wrong estimation for VTL
Thank you very much for response. I agree with you totally, but estimated capacity is wrong in TSM for many primary pools allocated on Data Domain VTL. For example, for 128 tapes with size 64GB (max 8192GB) it gives Estimated Capacity: 18,191 G. Any comments? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner, Andy Sent: 07 08 2014 12:42 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL One note to consider with DataDomain. The tape has no compression from the TSM perspective. If you create 100GB tapes, the estimated capacity in TSM should be 100GB. TSM will store 100GB on a tape. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grigori Solonovitch Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:08 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL Thank you very much for RFE and information. I will try to modify device classes. Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: 06 08 2014 9:30 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Wrong estimation for VTL The following is how TSM handles tapes, I assume VTL would be the same. Essentially the estimated capacity is assigned to the tape when it is allocated to a stgpool and loaded into the drive. This value is determined from the device classEst/Max Capacity (MB) TSM will not update the capacity again untill it has reached the End Of Tape. I have put in an rfe 31662 so that TSM would (better) estimate tape capacity. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=31662 The best solution would be to align the estimated capacity for the device class with the actual data size you expect to fit on a tape. Grant On 06/08/14 15:37, Grigori Solonovitch wrote: TSM 6.3.3.100 VTL on Data Domain I have found wrong Estimated Capacity: for primary storage pools on VTL ( for example, for pool with 128 * 64 = 8192GB it gives estimated capacity 18,191 GB in query stg, but it is impossible). As a result storage pool utilization is calculated wrongly as well. What is the source of problem? Data Domain deduplication or something else? Shall I ignore this problem? Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. Please consider the environment before printing this Email. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software. CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software.
