I have customers that have millions of PDF and other stream files on the
IFS. We've tested access times between going to a Linux or Windows server
even across the LAN (1GB) and access times are significantly faster than
direct access with the IFS. Plus that moves what could be argued as archive
data off the transactional database into a more suitable storage management
for file serving. Don't get me wrong, the IFS is great and used properly
is hands down the best solution for IBM i centric applications, but it does
have limitations and that's what we are addressing here.
ASYNCBRING did make a massive impact on save times, not so much on restore.
SSDs are an expensive way to solve a speed problem when the items to be
stored really should be on Tier 3 storage, not Tier 1 storage.
IF you save the IFS in 10 minutes, it must have almost nothing but what IBM
puts there and some small other bits you store there. I have IFS save
functions that run 10 -15 hours at customer locations. Linux backed them
all up to the same tape device (SPHiNX VTL) in less than 1/3 that time even
with ASSYNBRING.
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steinmetz, Paul
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 9:40 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion' <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: AIX suggestions
Jim,
I'd be curious why you say the IFS is slow.
Prior to SSD and ASYNCBRING, I would agree.
IFS save less than 10 minutes.
Decades back we had a sandbox Linux LPAR with disks hosted from the i.
It was ugly, gone.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob
Berendt
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:24 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: AIX suggestions
I have two AIX guest lpars consuming disk from IBM i hosts.
Set up by our BP.
Yes, there is a strange variety of disk sizes they use. Rather reminiscent
of the way people used to partition Windows disk to a C: and a
D: drive with a small C: drive with just the OS on it.
I know where you're going with this but can't help you much more than that.
I think AIX over Linux is a good choice as many of the drivers come with AIX
and with Linux you end up spending a day downloading the drivers. We had a
consultant set up TSM on Linux years ago, one week after doing the same
thing for a fellow local user group member who had them do the same thing on
AIX. We ended up being billed an extra day. The cost of AIX is chump
change compared to that.
When we did our reload we went to AIX.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: Jim Oberholtzer <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/21/2017 10:13 AM
Subject: AIX suggestions
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Folks:
A bit off topic for this forum but I don't think there is an AIX forum in
Midrange.com. We can take responses off line unless folks are
interested.
I'm setting up a new AIX environment at Agile (P8 with SAN storage). It
will ultimately take over for an older Microsoft AD server, primarily
focused on file serving (SAMBA or AIX Connections) and act as a NIM server.
IBM i will provide DNS/LDAP/DHCP. As much as anything this will be a proof
of concept to kill AD in select customers.
Before I get the "Why not just use IBM i all the way", quite simply the
IFS
is too slow in most cases both in file serving and backup/restore. Not a
slam on it, just a fact.
So I'm looking for suggestions on DASD structure or any other best
practice
tips those of you who already run AIX might have.
I'll be trolling for AIX specific sites as well but I thought I'd start
here.
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
midrange.com
