ADSM-L

Re: Slowness of the Migration Process

1997-04-09 08:55:58
Subject: Re: Slowness of the Migration Process
From: Khiem Phan <kphan1 AT TANDY DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:55:58 -0500
Melinda,
For adsm v2. the MOVEBATCHSIZE=40(default) IBM recomended 1000(max)
MOVESIZETHRESH=500(default) IBM recomended 500(max value).

Khiem Phan
>----------
>From:  Pittson, Timothy ,HiServ/US[SMTP:tpittson AT HIMAIL.HCC DOT COM]
>Sent:  Wednesday, April 09, 1997 7:01 AM
>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:       Re: Slowness of the Migration Process
>
>Melinda,
>        ADSM does support multiple stgpool migration processes.  I know this
>option was also available at some point in version 1 (possibly as a
>PTF).  The command to change this is
>
>UPD STGPOOL poolname MIGPROCESS=n   (where n = 1-999 inclusive).
>
>A couple of ADSM server options you can check (again... I think these
>were available at some point in Version 1 but am not positive so check
>the doc that came with the latest PTF you've applied)...
>
>MOVEBATCHSIZE   (default = 32,  range = 1-256)
>MOVESIZETHRESHOLD  (default = 1, range = 1-500)
>
>Increasing these will help...
>
>Good luck !!!
>
>Tim Pittson
>tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com
>
>
>>----------
>>From:  Melinda Varian[SMTP:MAINT%PUCC.BITNET AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]
>>Sent:  Wednesday, April 09, 1997 7:10 AM
>>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>>Subject:       Slowness of the Migration Process
>>
>>I suspect I'm not the only one having a rather trying week due to the
>>32-bit Windows clients doing full backups in honor of Daylight Savings
>>(I have about 1200 of them).
>>
>>Of my three servers (all on VM, all V1), two are holding together, but
>>the largest (1800 clients) is not.  I've expanded the disk storage pool
>>on all of them and cranked the maximum number of sessions down, but the
>>disk storage pool (6G) on the largest keeps filling up.
>>
>>The problem is that the migration process can't keep up, running around
>>the clock.  Am I right in believing that only one migration process is
>>allowed at a time?  Is there any way to up the priority of the migration
>>task?  (It appears to be relatively low.)  I've given the server virtual
>>machine massive favoring, and the tapes are in an STK silo, so it never
>>waits long for tape mounts.  Any suggestions for speeding up the process?
>>
>>Melinda Varian,
>>Princeton University
>>
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>