ADSM-L

Re: migration/mount waits

1997-10-30 09:51:20
Subject: Re: migration/mount waits
From: "Clendenny, Ronald D." <rdclendenny AT CAL.UE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:51:20 -0600
Tom,
I have seen some very erroneous wait times shortly after midnight, which
I attributed to a math/logic error in calculating the time difference
across 2 days.  The wait times later in the day were correct.
Also, how many processes is your migration limited to.  That will
determine how many drives you use in the 3494 and, therefore, cause a
wait, even if other drives are not busy.
BTW, we also have a 3494 w/ 4 3590's (the last 2 were installed last
night).  Its a lot more fun with 4 drives!

Ron Clendenny
Callaway Nuclear Plant
Fulton, Missouri
<rdclendenny AT cal.ue DOT com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Tann{s [SMTP:tom.tannas AT USIT.UIO DOT NO]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 1997 8:20 AM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      migration/mount waits
>
> When migration from a diskpool to a collocated tapepool is running,
> several output-volumes will be needed.
> For each volume that needs to be mountet the process will wait for the
> tape to be mounted. (we have a 3494 with 4 3590's, and the average
> mount-time is about 60 seconds)
>
> During this wait-time the show process command (admin CLI) will at the
> end
> of its output say for example
>
> Waiting for mount of output volume BCK326 (7521 seconds)
>
> (in this case the migration-process had been running for about two
> hours
> an was wating for it's 22nd tape to be mounted)
>
> If this number (7521) was right, something wold be terribly wrong with
> the
> library. (the other tapedrives were not bysy)
> But the tape was mounted in less than one miunte...
>
> I then thougt the number could be the accumulated wait-time for the
> process. But it's not.
>
> It's actually the total of all the wait-time plus the time each tape
> has
> been mounted. Which adds up to be about the total running time of the
> process....
>
> NOt a major problem, but it's quite annoying.. ANyone else seen this?
> Comments?
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>