Copy Service Parameter Tuning for Distributed Site Recovery

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing disaster recovery systems in multi-site data storage environments face inefficiencies due to the need for ongoing manual adjustments of numerous parameters, which are interdependent and require significant manual intervention to maintain efficient performance.

Innovation Solution

A method involving a fitness function and genetic algorithm is employed to automatically optimize parameter settings by evaluating different configurations, selecting optimal parameters, and storing them in a configuration parameter table, which is then deployed to production machines for efficient data mirroring operations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual adjustments of parameters are performed to maintain efficient performance in disaster recovery systems, then performance can be optimized, but significant manual labor and time are required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveperformance optimizationVSAvoidmanual labor time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-optimization of parameters through automated testing and evaluation. The fitness function automatically evaluates different parameter configurations and selects optimal settings without requiring manual intervention, allowing the disaster recovery system to maintain itself autonomously

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Parameter optimization is performed in advance through automated testing in a test environment before deployment to production. The system pre-evaluates multiple parameter configurations and stores optimal settings in a configuration parameter table, so that when disaster recovery operations are needed, the system is already optimized and ready

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If numerous parameters are manually configured and adjusted, then system performance can be maintained, but the complexity of manual intervention increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem performanceVSAvoidparameter configuration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically manages the complexity of numerous parameters through self-service mechanisms. The fitness function and automated testing process handle parameter evaluation and optimization without requiring human operators to understand or manually adjust each parameter, effectively hiding the complexity from users

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system systematically explores and adjusts multiple parameters through automated testing. By using a fitness function to evaluate different parameter configurations and automatically selecting optimal values, the system manages parameter complexity through structured parameter changes rather than manual configuration

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Productivity

If automated testing and optimization processes are implemented, then manual labor is reduced and speed is increased, but computational resources and testing time are required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveparameter optimization speedVSAvoidtesting process time
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs parameter optimization in advance in a test environment before production deployment. By conducting automated testing and evaluation beforehand, the system prepares optimal configurations that can be quickly deployed, reducing the time needed for manual adjustment when actually needed

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses a test environment as a copy of the production environment to perform automated testing. By creating and evaluating parameter configurations in a replicated test setting, the system can optimize parameters without affecting production operations, and then deploy the optimized configurations to production

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentUS12585560B2Refining parameter settings for copy services
Publication Date: 2026.03.24 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION
  • US12585560B2 patent drawing
  • US12585560B2 patent drawing
  • US12585560B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A computer-implemented method (CIM), according to one embodiment, includes defining a fitness function for testing different configurations in a distributed site environment, and generating a configuration table that includes all possible configurations of a system in a test environment. The method further includes performing a testing process for each of the configurations. The testing process includes initializing a population of a plurality of individuals. The testing process further includes using the fitness function to evaluate a fitness of each of the individuals, selecting a subset of the individuals to be in a parent group, creating new individuals by combining information from multiple individuals in the parent group, and storing refined parameters of the configuration, that are determined to be optimal, to a configuration parameter table. A production machine is caused to tune to the refined parameters of the configuration parameter table for operations performed within the distributed site environment.