ADSM-L

Re: Migration did not occur

2001-02-07 07:02:09
Subject: Re: Migration did not occur
From: Joerg Nouvertne <joerg.nouvertne AT WTAL DOT DE>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:01:19 +0100
On Wednesday 07 February 2001 11:00, you wrote:
> Hello ADSM co-workers

Hello Neil,

> I am running ADSM 3.1.2.2 on a NSM C00. We have a disk storage pool called
> INCDISK with the high threshold set to 70 and the low set to 30. Our main
> clients are SQL servers. All clients backup to the SQLFLAT backup copy
> group which is tied to the INCDISK storage pool. The INCDISK storage pool
> will migrate to the INCTAPE storage pool when necessary.
>
> The issue that I have observed is that when the %utilised went over the 70%
> high threshold then migration did not kick in. I waited until the %utilised
> reached 92% and still migration did not occur. Query mount showed all
> drives had tapes mounted, but when I queried the activity log to try and
> understand what had mounted these volumes I could not come to and solid
> conclusion.

What is the activity log telling you? Maybe you should lower the HI migration
threshold to force migration and have a look to the actlog afterwards.
Possible reasons why the migration does not kick in are e.g. Not enough
scratch tapes available in the destination pool, no migration pool at all,
etc.

> However I do suspect that restore operations where the culprit.
> This was further backed up by entries informing me that earlier migration
> processes had been pre-empted. I eventually dismounted the volumes half
> expecting migration to kick in, but it didn't.

Even if all tape drives are in use by other processes, migration should kick
in, but would wait for a mount device, and you should see it in the process
list.

> I eventually got migration
> to work by lowering both thresholds to 0.

This would force it. You can also move the data manually via "move data
DISKPOOL stgpool=MIGRATIONPOOL wait=no".

>
> What I am not too sure about is whether migration is actually pre-empted by
> a restore operation. If this is the case then surly this is wrong. Surely
> migration is more important as this is the safety valve before the storage
> pool reaches 100%. Does anybody know the order of precedence for
> pre-emption?
>
> Can anybody confirm or add to me conclusions. Thanks for your time.
>
> Neil Sharp
> Merrill Lynch ADSM/TSM Administrator
> Work : 020-7573-0469
> Mobile : 07769-741612
> Pager : 01893-038277
> e-mail : neil_sharp AT ml DOT com

Regards

--
Joerg Nouvertne
Joerg Nouvertne
... who still runs ADSM 3.1, but who will take the new adventure TSM 4.1 soon.