It would be one object, however as I pointed out the advantage of backing
that up as one object is all but eliminated with Asynchronous Bring.
The other disadvantage would be in order to back up the UDFS, you would have
to bring down the iASP for the duration of the save. Not terribly useful.
I addressed speed of backup in an earlier post where you get a primary
backup, then only add incremental backups of new objects appended to the
same tape.
On a monthly or quarterly basis resave the entire iASP and start over to
maintain audit controls .
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Richard Schoen
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:35 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Large volume file move
Thanks I still need a little clarity on the iASP and backups and I don't
think I heard the answer that I'm seeking to confirm or deny iASP backup.
Once the iASP UDFS is unmounted am I backing up a single large IFS object or
still a directory of 20 million individual IFS objects if I'm Justin ?
If the unmounted UDFS is a single object then backing up the entire thing
should still stream the tape drive full speed because it's 1 single IFS
object instead of 20 million objects.
This question doesn't address his migration, but more the go-forward if his
new box has an iASP and he elects to store his images there.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
Director of Document Management
e. richard.schoen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
p. 952.486.6802
w. helpsystems.com
------------------------------
message: 3
date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:19:58 -0500
from: "Jim Oberholtzer" <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Large volume file move
Richard:
Your basic instincts are correct, backing up one object is going to be
faster, but only marginally, particularly if you use Asynchronous bring.
Keep in mind assuming you save the directory subtree, the directory
structure is saved first, then the objects below it. Asynch bring will
pre-fetch the smaller files into memory so the tape is moving almost as fast
as it can. The effect of saving multiple objects is then mitigated vs. the
single large file.
Either way the IFS is not going to compete with Unix or Windows file serving
from a pure speed perspective. Where backup/recovery, management of the
system, cost of acquisition, etc. are taken into account IBM i can win that
argument almost every time, except where the application needs extremely
fast access to IFS objects. Larry's point is a good one. TCO is far lower
with IBM i than a mix of systems, and the headaches that entails.
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Richard Schoen
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:01 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Large volume file move
So backup up an ISO image would speed backup times because it gets the
entire disk blob from the IFS.
Isn't an unmounted UDFS also the equivalent of a disk blob (think the old
Windows File Server IOP) so backup of that would be similar to backing up a
disk blob ?
I would think the main benefit being that the tape can stream at full speed
because it's backing one large object rather than a bunch of individual
objects.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
Director of Document Management
e. richard.schoen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
p. 952.486.6802
w. helpsystems.com
--
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:
https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link:
http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
midrange.com
