ADSM-L

Re: Expiration processing: There are many fixes in this area

2002-09-11 14:08:00
Subject: Re: Expiration processing: There are many fixes in this area
From: "Kauffman, Tom" <KauffmanT AT NIBCO DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:38:14 -0500
I might as well chime in with my results --

ANR0984I Process 1120 for EXPIRE INVENTORY started in the BACKGROUND at
12:01:26
ANR0812I Inventory file expiration process 1120 completed: examined 2984588
objects, deleting 32611 backup objects, 2726 archive objects, 0 DB backup
volumes, and 0 recovery plan files. 0 errors were encountered.
ANR0987I Process 1120 for EXPIRE INVENTORY running in the BACKGROUND
processed
35337 items with a completion state of SUCCESS at 12:17:25.

Or 3,112 objects per second.

Environment -- 4-way 660-6M1, fiber-channel access to two ESS raid arrays
with the database software mirrored by TSM between them (yes, I'm paranoid).
Using SDD to load-balance I/O over 3 fibers to six logical drives (three
from each array). TSM 4.2.1.13, AIX 4.3.3 ML 10.

Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:03 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Expiration processing: There are many fixes in this area
>
>
> Hi Paul and Miles!
> Thanks for replying! I was impressed by your figures Miles!
> 1260 objects per
> second, wow! I don't know much about UNIX hardware so I don't
> know what a
> 6h1 is, but it must be a lot faster that a H70.
> I will plan a upgrade to 4.2.2.12 next week, let's see if that helps.
> For now, I will wait with 5.1, from experience I'm always a
> bit afraid for
> TSM maintenance level 1 software. I will upgrade to 5.1 as
> soon as 5.1.2.0
> becomes available though.
> Kindest regards,
> Eric van Loon
> KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seay, Paul [mailto:seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 04:12
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Expiration processing: There are many fixes in this area
>
>
> During backups and a maxed out system I fired up an
> expiration to see what
> my worse rate is.  It was an average of 187 objects a second.
>  Cache hit
> rate was only 95.7 during this time.  So, yes, you have a
> problem, and I
> think I know what it is.  Until you get to 4.2.2.7, and
> really higher or
> 5.1.1.4 if V5 there are some nasty expiration locking
> problems.  You may
> want to consider getting on 4.2.2.12 or 5.1.1.4 depending on
> your situation.
>
> Paul D. Seay, Jr.
> Technical Specialist
> Naptheon Inc.
> 757-688-8180
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:49 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Expiration processing
>
>
> Hi *SM-ers!
> Last week I read about Rodney Clark doing a 400 objects a
> second expiration.
> I checked my expiration process: it's inspecting about 20
> objects a second.
> Ok, maybe he has got faster hardware, but 20 times faster? I have TSM
> 4.2.2.0 running on a H70 with the database on raw logical
> volumes (36 Gb.
> 10K rpm SSA disks, TSM mirroring). My database cache hit is
> 98.53%. I was
> hoping that some people out there (with somewhat similar
> setup) could share
> their expiration performance with me. Does anybody have some
> tips? Where
> should I start troubleshooting? Thank you very much in
> advance for your
> reply! Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may
> contain confidential
> and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If
> you are not the
> addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any
> attachment may
> be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other
> action related to
> this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be
> unlawful. If
> you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the
> sender immediately
> by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart
> Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees
> shall not be
> liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this
> e-mail or any
> attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.
> **********************************************************************
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>