Re: Reducing downtime for backups

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

Actually our 3590 runs as fast, if not faster than, *SAVF.  But you do need
a healthy 400.  This same tape drive went to a newer 400 with a different
card and the SAVSYS dropped from 44 minutes to 4.

Al wrote an article entitled 'Save while (almost) active.'  I forget where
I last saw this.  It talked about quiescing applications.  Actually quite
good.  Anyone have a link?  But this is not what we use.

Are you running multiple non related applications - probably not.  If you
were, like our multiple divisions - each with their own set of libraries,
you could try bringing one set down at a time.  They each have their own
downslot.  And a simple net.data screen shows them where they lie.

Rob Berendt

==================
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



                    prumschlag@phdinc.c
                    om                        To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
                    Sent by:                  cc:
                    midrange-l-admin@mi       Fax to:
                    drange.com                Subject:     Reducing downtime 
for backups


                    11/30/2001 10:00 AM
                    Please respond to
                    midrange-l








I am investigating options for reducing the length of time that the system
is
unavailable to users during our nightly backup job.  Not long ago we added
disks
and started creating *SAVF files in a separate ASP for the backups, copying
the
*SAVF's to tape later.  This reduced downtime to about 1 hour, but this
continues to grow as we add files and the existing files grow.  We are
doing
full SAVLIB's using BRMS and have split out all of the program and
non-essential
libraries into a separate job.  We backup 50 GB of data which compresses to
about 30 GB in the *SAVF format.  We are a single AS/400 shop running JD
Edwards.

At this point, the options I see are:
     Use SAVCHGOBJ.  We have done some tests on this and determined it will
not
     save us much.  A large percentage of the objects are changed everyday
and
     the system takes too long trying to figure out which objects to save.
     Separate "current" data from "prior year" data and store in different
     libraries.  We have already done some of this for the largest files.
This
     requires system changes because the users still need access to the
prior
     year data.
     Use the Save While Active Option.  I suspect that this is the best
solution
     and there is little (if any) out-of-pocket cost.  The downsides are a)
The
     time and risk associated with investigating and revising our current
     procedures, and b) Making sure that everyone here understands the
     implications of the new procedure.

I would be appreciative of other ideas anyone may have.

I have seen testimonials on this list that the newer tape drives are
extremely
fast (we have a 3570).  They couldn't possibly be faster that going to
*SAVF
files, could they?

TIA
Phil


_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.