Well, now you've confused me, as well...
When I set RESOURCEUTILIZATION 10, I get 8 sessions, but 4 are producers and
4 are consumers - so how did you get 8 tape mounts?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Schneider, John
<John.Schneider AT mercy DOT net>wrote:
> Ok, now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Your example
> completely contradicts what is in the Performance Guide, which provides
> a table which I reproduce below. I hope email doesn't mess up the
> columns. It looks correct to me, I assure you. :-)
>
> RESOURCEUTILIZATION value Maximum number Unique number of
> Threshold
> of sessions producer sessions
> (seconds)
> 1 1 0 45
> 2 2 1 45
> 3 3 1 45
> 4 3 1 30
> 5 4 2 30
> 6 4 2 20
> 7 5 2 20
> 8 6 2 20
> 9 7 3 20
> 10 8 4 10
> 0 (default) 2 1 30
>
> A Resourceutil of 4 is a max of three sessions, and only one "producer"
> session, i.e. a tape mount. A Resourceutil of 5 is required for 2 tape
> mounts, and so on. If my client maxnummp=2, then a resourceutil of 4
> should not overrun it.
>
> UNLESS... either the manual is wrong and the algorithm is not what is
> stated. Or does the algorithm work differently in a Lan-free client
> situation? We have another Lan-free client in a different TSM
> environment, and we used to have a Resourceutil of 10 for a certain
> client there, and I would swear there were times when I saw 8 tape
> mounts. (The client maxnummp must have been high enough to permit
> this). So does Resourceutil really work like the table above, or do
> Lan-free clients or proxynode clients operate under a different set of
> rules? Anyone able to enlighten me?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John D. Schneider
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Bos, Karel
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU <mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] How does VCB backups handle resource utilization?
>
> It's late and it's long ago, but I seem to remember something about
> these mount point and resourceutil things in the line of:
>
> Resource 4, # mountpoint
> - 1 admin session
> - 1 mountpoint for diskpools
> - 2 mountpoint max for tape mounts
>
> So in you case, going directly to tape, you will get a max of 3
> mountpoints (because there is no diskpool) to tape.
>
>
> Regards/Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Karel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Schneider, John
> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2008 18:27
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU <mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Subject: Re: How does VCB backups handle resource utilization?
>
> Howard,
> But resourceutilization is 4 now. It should give me fewer mount
> points, not more. So why I am overrunning the client's maximum mount
> points of 2 when resourceutilization is 4?
> The reason I can't just increase the client's maximum mount
> points until the message goes away is that there is a maximum of 64
> virtual tape drives, so I can't have every client grabbing 4 virtual
> tapes drives at once. There is also no reason to have all these small
> clients mounting multiple tape drives at once, since most of them don't
> have much data or take long to back up.
> I also just have this concept in my head that TSM is designed
> according to logical rules, and works as designed. So if it is not
> behaving the way I think it will, perhaps I don't understand the rules
> properly, and I need to fix my understanding.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John D. Schneider
> Phone: 314-364-3150
> Cell: 314-750-8721
> Email: John.Schneider AT Mercy DOT net <mailto:John.Schneider AT Mercy DOT
> net>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Howard Coles
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:39 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU <mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] How does VCB backups handle resource utilization?
>
> Either increase the maximum allowed mountpoints or put a line in the
> client DSM.OPT along the lines of resourceutilization 5 (5 works well
> with 2 mountpoints allowed)
>
> See Ya'
> Howard
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Schneider, John
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:35 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU <mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] How does VCB backups handle resource utilization?
> >
> > Greetings,
> > We are running TSM 5.4.3.0 server on AIX 5.3ML5. The Lan-free VCB
>
> > proxy is running TSM client 5.5.0.6.
> > We are getting an unexpected result with our VMWare Consolidated
> > Backups. We are just starting to run these in volume, and we are
> > getting frequent messages:
> >
> > 09/10/08 00:02:06 ANR0539W Transaction failed for session 4448 for
> > node
> > EPCEMI11. This node has exceeded its maximum
> > number of
> > mount points. (SESSION: 4448)
> >
> > 09/10/08 00:02:06 ANR0539W Transaction failed for session 4449 for
> > node
> > EPCSTL11. This node has exceeded its maximum
> > number of
> > mount points. (SESSION: 4449)
> >
> > 09/10/08 00:02:07 ANR0539W Transaction failed for session 4439 for
> > node
> > EPCSGF01RO. This node has exceeded its maximum
> > number of
> > mount points. (SESSION: 4439)
> >
> > 09/10/08 00:02:07 ANR0539W Transaction failed for session 4444 for
> > node
> > EPCSGF01RO. This node has exceeded its maximum
> > number of
> > mount points. (SESSION: 4444)
> >
> >
> > The destination storage pool is a virtual tape library, which is why
> > mount points are involved.
> >
> > In the Lan-free proxy server running VCB, the Resourceutilization is
> > set to 4, and the maximum mount points is 8. On the proxy clients
> > themselves, I understand they inherit the Resourceutilization of the
> > proxy server, so they would be 4 also. Their maximum mount points is
> > set to 2. When Resourceutilization is 4, aren't the maximum mount
> > points of 2 enough? According to the Performance Tuning Guide,
> > Resourceutilization of 4 should not allow more than one mounted tape.
> >
> > We aren't getting the error for all clients, just a fraction of them.
> > So maybe it is only happening for larger clients where the
> > Resourceutilization algorithm to mount another tape kicks in? We
> > could
> > always just jack the maximum mount points for the clients up and up
> > until the problem goes away, but I don't understand why the client is
> > trying to mount more than 2 tapes with Resourceutilization set to 4.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > John D. Schneider
> > Lead Systems Administrator - Storage
> > Sisters of Mercy Health Systems
> > 3637 South Geyer Road
> > St. Louis, MO 63127
> > Phone: 314-364-3150
> > Cell: 314-750-8721
> > Email: John.Schneider AT Mercy DOT net <mailto:John.Schneider AT Mercy DOT
> > net>
> >
> >
> > This e-mail contains information which (a) may be PROPRIETARY IN
> NATURE
> > OR
> > OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only
> > for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the
> > addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the
> > addressee(s), you are notified that reading, copying or distributing
> > this e-mail is prohibited. If
> you
> > have
> > received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately.
> This e-mail contains information which (a) may be PROPRIETARY IN NATURE
> OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only
> for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the
> addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the
> addressee(s), you are notified that reading, copying or distributing
> this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please contact the sender immediately.
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains information which (a) may be PROPRIETARY IN NATURE OR
> OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only for
> the
> use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the addressee, or the
> person responsible for delivering this to the addressee(s), you are
> notified
> that reading, copying or distributing this e-mail is prohibited. If you
> have
> received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately.
>
|
