Backup and monitoring apps installed on Virtual I/O server

A question for you all,

We've got a p510 (4 CPU) which has been micropartitioned up into 5
LPARs + 1 Virtual I/O server. Each partition can use between 10% and
70% of CPU cycles all disks attached to the box are being presented
through the VIO server to the other LPARs.
The VIO server has a particular LUN attached (from an HP SAN) which is
mounted as a filesystem and NFS-ed across all the other LPARs. All
LPARs can see the complete content of the filesystem and it's
basically used as a centralised backup area for the databases on all
LPARs (except the VIO Server one). One or two of the LPARs are hardly
used at all.

It's now required to:

1. Install a Data Protector client somewhere to get the content of
this LUN backed up to tape.
2. Install IBM Data Director somewhere to monitor the hardware of the
pSeries.

Question: How wise is it to install both of these on the Virtual I/O
Server. From an admin perspective it would be very nice to get it all
centralised etc but what are the risks involved? I can only imagine
that if the VIO Server gets saturated then the rest of the LPARs with
definately suffer.

Any recommendations on how to proceed in the best way?

/RoB

On 21 Sep, 11:25, RoB <pluma...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> A question for you all,
>
> We've got a p510 (4 CPU) which has been micropartitioned up into 5
> LPARs + 1 Virtual I/O server. Each partition can use between 10% and
> 70% of CPU cycles all disks attached to the box are being presented
> through the VIO server to the other LPARs.
> The VIO server has a particular LUN attached (from an HP SAN) which is
> mounted as a filesystem and NFS-ed across all the other LPARs. All
> LPARs can see the complete content of the filesystem and it's
> basically used as a centralised backup area for the databases on all
> LPARs (except the VIO Server one). One or two of the LPARs are hardly
> used at all.
>
> It's now required to:
>
> 1. Install a Data Protector client somewhere to get the content of
> this LUN backed up to tape.
> 2. Install IBM Data Director somewhere to monitor the hardware of the
> pSeries.
>
> Question: How wise is it to install both of these on the Virtual I/O
> Server. From an admin perspective it would be very nice to get it all
> centralised etc but what are the risks involved? I can only imagine
> that if the VIO Server gets saturated then the rest of the LPARs with
> definately suffer.
>
> Any recommendations on how to proceed in the best way?
>
> /RoB[/color]


Hi Rob,

I think you also need to bear in mind that you shouldnt really be
installing software on the VIO server. Sure, you need to install some
things such as drivers for the SAN etc, but in general I think its
really to be treated as a system you dont install additional software
on (Im happy to be corrected on that though) If you install a lot of
software and then there are problems you may find IBM will first
advise to remove the software you have installed.

Also even though the VIO server is just AIX with some 'VIO' stuff
running on it, I think you need to consider that these products may
not even be supported on a VIO server.

Im not familiar with the products you wish to install so cant advise
on whether running them on a VIO server with reagrds to performance is
a good idea or not. It may be that they require certain AIX fixes and
you cant really go and install ad-hoc AIX fixes on the VIO server.

Personally I'd setup a new LPAR for them.

Regards,
Scott

On Sep 21, 11:48 am, scott <scott_doyl...@johnlewis.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> On 21 Sep, 11:25, RoB <pluma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > A question for you all,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > We've got a p510 (4 CPU) which has been micropartitioned up into 5
> > LPARs + 1 Virtual I/O server. Each partition can use between 10% and
> > 70% of CPU cycles all disks attached to the box are being presented
> > through the VIO server to the other LPARs.
> > The VIO server has a particular LUN attached (from an HP SAN) which is
> > mounted as a filesystem and NFS-ed across all the other LPARs. All
> > LPARs can see the complete content of the filesystem and it's
> > basically used as a centralised backup area for the databases on all
> > LPARs (except the VIO Server one). One or two of the LPARs are hardly
> > used at all.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > It's now required to:[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 1. Install a Data Protector client somewhere to get the content of
> > this LUN backed up to tape.
> > 2. Install IBM Data Director somewhere to monitor the hardware of the
> > pSeries.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Question: How wise is it to install both of these on the Virtual I/O
> > Server. From an admin perspective it would be very nice to get it all
> > centralised etc but what are the risks involved? I can only imagine
> > that if the VIO Server gets saturated then the rest of the LPARs with
> > definately suffer.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any recommendations on how to proceed in the best way?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > /RoB[/color]
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I think you also need to bear in mind that you shouldnt really be
> installing software on the VIO server. Sure, you need to install some
> things such as drivers for the SAN etc, but in general I think its
> really to be treated as a system you dont install additional software
> on (Im happy to be corrected on that though) If you install a lot of
> software and then there are problems you may find IBM will first
> advise to remove the software you have installed.
>
> Also even though the VIO server is just AIX with some 'VIO' stuff
> running on it, I think you need to consider that these products may
> not even be supported on a VIO server.
>
> Im not familiar with the products you wish to install so cant advise
> on whether running them on a VIO server with reagrds to performance is
> a good idea or not. It may be that they require certain AIX fixes and
> you cant really go and install ad-hoc AIX fixes on the VIO server.
>
> Personally I'd setup a new LPAR for them.
>
> Regards,
> Scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

Thanks Scott,
[color=blue]
> Also even though the VIO server is just AIX with some 'VIO' stuff
> running on it, I think you need to consider that these products may
> not even be supported on a VIO server.[/color]

This is the worry I have as well so I thought I'd better ask around to
see if anyone has found a better solution. Adding another LPAR isn't
really an option but I could just install these apps on an existing
LPAR.

Has anyone got experience with running monitoring/backup clients on
the VIO Server?

/RoB

RoB wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Also even though the VIO server is just AIX with some 'VIO' stuff
>> running on it, I think you need to consider that these products may
>> not even be supported on a VIO server.[/color]
>
> This is the worry I have as well so I thought I'd better ask around to
> see if anyone has found a better solution. Adding another LPAR isn't
> really an option but I could just install these apps on an existing
> LPAR.[/color]

i'm the resident guinea-pig/figure-it-out-er at our locale.. and i've
pretty much learned to look at the vio more as an 'appliance' than an
lpar per se. i've had to install software into the vio to make it
integrate with our san back-end (emc powerpath, clariion agents) but
feel highly unholy doing it all... :) basically, try your best to ignore
the entire 'if it walks, quacks, and defecates like an AIX lpar' feeling
and treat it more like an appliance.

myself, i would probably back it up from the point the nfs mount is
shared. i mean, hell.. at that point all other in-frame lpars access it
in a dma/mmio-type fashion, but why waste the cycles in the processor
pool (which will be used WHEREVER you back it up from) running multiple
dma/page accesses per data block when you can simply do it at the
source? you're not really costing yourself much unless you are running
uncapped and have your priorities set such the backup in the non-serving
lpar would be higher than the others.

... but again, i'm still learning this all myself on an 8-way p570 with
two fully-redundant vios serving up to 9 lpars in tryouts/practice (i.e.
no real data/processing yet.. only one POC for an app we've now
inherited due to its success... :/ )

-r

RoB wrote:[color=blue]
> A question for you all,
>
> We've got a p510 (4 CPU) which has been micropartitioned up into 5
> LPARs + 1 Virtual I/O server. Each partition can use between 10% and
> 70% of CPU cycles all disks attached to the box are being presented
> through the VIO server to the other LPARs.
> The VIO server has a particular LUN attached (from an HP SAN) which is
> mounted as a filesystem and NFS-ed across all the other LPARs. All
> LPARs can see the complete content of the filesystem and it's
> basically used as a centralised backup area for the databases on all
> LPARs (except the VIO Server one). One or two of the LPARs are hardly
> used at all.
>
> It's now required to:
>
> 1. Install a Data Protector client somewhere to get the content of
> this LUN backed up to tape.
> 2. Install IBM Data Director somewhere to monitor the hardware of the
> pSeries.
>
> Question: How wise is it to install both of these on the Virtual I/O
> Server. From an admin perspective it would be very nice to get it all
> centralised etc but what are the risks involved? I can only imagine
> that if the VIO Server gets saturated then the rest of the LPARs with
> definately suffer.
>
> Any recommendations on how to proceed in the best way?
>
> /RoB
>[/color]

Move your NFS LUN to one of the other LPARs, and let it do the NFS. You
are more than likely in an unsupported configuration the way you are
now. I have installed monitoring tools like nmon, and ganglia on my VIO
servers, but other than that, I pretty much consider it taboo.

Also, from my personal experience, I have noticed that IBM jams in more
"functionality" with their tools with every update to VIO server. The
latest 1.4 makes my point. VIO ran nicely under 1GB of memory before,
but struggles now. They gave you what appears to be an ITM client, but
I wouldn't touch ITM with a ten foot pole. ITM is a quintessential
Tivoli product, but that is another subject entirely! ;-)

On Sep 22, 1:58 pm, 0xdeadabe <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> RoB wrote:[color=green]
> > A question for you all,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > We've got a p510 (4 CPU) which has been micropartitioned up into 5
> > LPARs + 1 Virtual I/O server. Each partition can use between 10% and
> > 70% of CPU cycles all disks attached to the box are being presented
> > through the VIO server to the other LPARs.
> > The VIO server has a particular LUN attached (from an HP SAN) which is
> > mounted as a filesystem and NFS-ed across all the other LPARs. All
> > LPARs can see the complete content of the filesystem and it's
> > basically used as a centralised backup area for the databases on all
> > LPARs (except the VIO Server one). One or two of the LPARs are hardly
> > used at all.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > It's now required to:[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 1. Install a Data Protector client somewhere to get the content of
> > this LUN backed up to tape.
> > 2. Install IBM Data Director somewhere to monitor the hardware of the
> > pSeries.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Question: How wise is it to install both of these on the Virtual I/O
> > Server. From an admin perspective it would be very nice to get it all
> > centralised etc but what are the risks involved? I can only imagine
> > that if the VIO Server gets saturated then the rest of the LPARs with
> > definately suffer.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any recommendations on how to proceed in the best way?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > /RoB[/color]
>
> Move your NFS LUN to one of the other LPARs, and let it do the NFS. You
> are more than likely in an unsupported configuration the way you are
> now. I have installed monitoring tools like nmon, and ganglia on my VIO
> servers, but other than that, I pretty much consider it taboo.
>
> Also, from my personal experience, I have noticed that IBM jams in more
> "functionality" with their tools with every update to VIO server. The
> latest 1.4 makes my point. VIO ran nicely under 1GB of memory before,
> but struggles now. They gave you what appears to be an ITM client, but
> I wouldn't touch ITM with a ten foot pole. ITM is a quintessential
> Tivoli product, but that is another subject entirely! ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

Thanks for that you all,

I'll aim at presenting the LUN to one of the LPARs and back it up from
there. I don't want to mess around too much with the VIO server as I
remember being a minor nightmare to get it setup properly.

Cheers,

RoB