RE: Reducing downtime for backups

[Chris Bipes <chris.bipes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you have 6 drive in the ASP and they are at 90+%, well that is your
bottle neck.  More drive will improve performance.  Sound like your IOP is
ok, NOW.  Adding more drives means more data transferred faster thus more of
a load on your IOP.  With out know your rack config and processor it would
be hard to say exactly what to do.  Low CPU and IOP with high DISK
definitely point to more disk arms in the *SAVF ASP.  What is comes to is
where you want to spend your money, DASD or TAPE?

JMHO,

Christopher K. Bipes      mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com
Operations & Network Mgr  mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com
CrossCheck, Inc.                  http://www.cross-check.com
6119 State Farm Drive     Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102
Rohnert Park CA  94928    Fax: 707 586-1884

-----Original Message-----
From: prumschlag@phdinc.com [mailto:prumschlag@phdinc.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 11:43 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: RE: Reducing downtime for backups


Chris,

I can't dedicate one of the IOP's we have to the *SAVF ASP, but if I read
the
statistics correctly, the IOP is not the bottleneck.  PM400 is showing that
the
disks (six 10k RPM drives) in this ASP are running 90-95 percent busy while
the
backup is running.  The drives in the System ASP are running about 10
percent
busy.  The CPU is running about 35% (dual processor).  I could throw money
at
the problem (more disks in the *SAVF ASP) but I'm not convinced that would
help
much.