|
I think 3590's have several different models, and it really matters if you
have enough horsepower to drive them.
One 3590 dropped from 44 minutes to do a SAVSYS to 4, just by upgrading
from a model 7xx.
The 3590's are faster. However the 3580's definitely put more data on a
single tape. We have a machine that uses one 3590 and two 3580's. The
TSM pc backup data eats up twelve 3580 tapes. The Domino data eats up
four 3590 tapes. The "real" or, as I call it, "DB2" data, fits on one
3590 tape.
Rob Berendt
--
"All creatures will make merry... under pain of death."
-Ming the Merciless (Flash Gordon)
Larry Bolhuis <lbolhuis@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/16/2004 09:32 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Fax to
Subject
Re: Backup performance
Jeff,
About a month ago I was working with a customer to reduce the backup
window on their 825. We split the backup to dual 3580's and took the
save from 7 hours to 3.5 hours. CPU, Memory and DASD were waaaay under
utilized. I rewrote the thing to be in three pieces:
a) Run though a list of libraries sending a data queue entry for each.
b) Submit some number (I started with four) concurrent jobs to do
saves to *SAVFs by reading the list from the queue.
c) when they are all done
1) relight the system
2) Submit another job to copy to tape.
Net result was to carve the save time down to under 2 hours, not
counting save to tape which is no longer on the critical path. I still
need to do some monitoring of resources to see if more concurrent jobs
would help even more. We did compression to the *SAVFs as disk is never
an unlimited resource!
We had already given up on their 3590 as the 3580's make that thing
look like punched paper tape.
- Larry
Jeff Crosby wrote:
>This talk about backing up \QNTC\ directories leads me to ask a question
>I've been thinking about.
>
>To reduce the backup window on the iSeries, is there anyone out there who
is
>backing up to disk (*SAVF) and, when the system is brought back from a
>restricted state, then transferring the *SAVF files to tape?
>
>I was curious as to whether something like this reduces the backup window
as
>far as restricted state is concerned. And I know what tape drive is used
>makes a big difference. Plus backing up to a *SAVF is a '1 library at a
>time' thing.
>
>
>
--
Larry Bolhuis IBM eServer Certified Systems Expert:
Vice President iSeries Technical Solutions V5R2
Arbor Solutions, Inc. iSeries LPAR Technical Solutions V5R2
1345 Monroe NW Suite 259 iSeries Linux Technical Solutions V5R2
Grand Rapids, MI 49505 iSeries Windows Integration Technical
Solutions V5R2
IBM eServer Certified Systems Specialist
(616) 451-2500 iSeries System Administrator for
OS/400 V5R2
(616) 451-2571 - Fax AS/400 RPG IV Developer
(616) 260-4746 - Cell iSeries System Command Operations V5R2
_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.