|
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.