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
>>
>
|
|
|