Re: [ADSM-L] Extra client sessions

Hi Zoltan,

Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default
RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, you may
see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount points. The
client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I suggest
making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, you have
the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual expectations
are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client requests).
Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the
operation if the settings are mismatched.

Best regards,

Andy

____________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
Product support:
https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/tivoli_storage_manager

Online documentation:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/landing/welcome_ssgsg7.html

Product Wiki:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%20Storage%20Manager

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2016-09-01
08:40:33:

> From: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> Thanks for the info.  Yes the user does(did) have RESOURCEUTILIZATION 4
> configured.
>
> I note the APAR you refer to is still open. It refers to v7.1 but how far
> back does it go?  The client recently upgrade all of his nodes to
7.1.6.2,
> the latest available for Linux - not sure what level he was at when I
first
> saw this issue.
>
> As I said, I always though if MAXNUMPOINTS was set to 1 (the default),
then
> what you specified for RESOURCEUTILZATION was ignored and you were only
> supposed to get 2-sessions?  Am I wrong in this assumption?
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Andrew Raibeck <storman AT us.ibm DOT com>
wrote:
>
> > Yes, do not use a RESOURCEUTILIZATION higher than the MAXNUMMP setting.
> >
> > Having said that, there is an APAR that might ("might" is the operative
> > word!) be a match for this issue, IT16004:
> >
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IT16004
> >
> > In this case, the symptom is seeing more consumer sessions than you
would
> > expect given the RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting. Even if the specific
symptoms
> > described in the APAR do not match your scenario, if no other logical
> > explanation fits, it might stil be a match. You can contact support for
> > further problem determination assistance.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > ________________
> >
> > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | storman AT us.ibm DOT com
> >
> > IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
> > Product support:
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/
> > tivoli_storage_manager
> >
> > Online documentation:
> > http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/
> > landing/welcome_ssgsg7.html
> >
> > Product Wiki:
> > https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%
> > 20Storage%20Manager
> >
> > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2016-08-31
> > 17:22:19:
> >
> > > From: Karel Bos <tsm.wad AT GMAIL DOT COM>
> > > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> > >
> > > Might want to check resourceutil settings as that limits the number
of
> > > sessions clients try to setup. It should match maxnummp or be lower.
> > >
> > > Op 31 aug. 2016 22:21 schreef "Zoltan Forray" <zforray AT vcu DOT edu>:
> > >
> > > > AHA - so I am not loosing my mind (at least in this situation).  I
too
> > have
> > > > been seeing clients getting >3-sessions eventhough the NODE
> > maxnumpoints is
> > > > 1!  I was always under the impression that maxnumpoints trumps
> > > > resourceutilization.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Denier <
> > > > Thomas.Denier AT jefferson DOT edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are occasionally seeing some odd behavior in our TSM
environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > We write incoming client files to sequential disk storage pools.
> > Almost
> > > > > all of our client nodes use the default maxnummp value of 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the odd behavior occurs, a number of clients will go through
the
> > > > > following sequence of events:
> > > > > 1.The TSM server will send a request to start a backup.
> > > > > 2.The client will almost immediately open a TCP connection to be
used
> > as
> > > > a
> > > > > producer session (a session used to obtain information from the
TSM
> > > > > database).
> > > > > 3.Somewhere between tens of seconds and a few minutes later the
> > client
> > > > > will open a TCP connection to be used as a consumer session (a
> > session
> > > > used
> > > > > to send copies of new and changed files).
> > > > > 4.Sometime later the client will open a third TCP connection and
> > start
> > > > > using it as a consumer session.
> > > > > 5.The TSM server will report large numbers of transaction
failures
> > > > because
> > > > > it considers the original consumer session to be tying up the one
> > mount
> > > > > point allowed for the node and hence has no way of storing files
> > arriving
> > > > > on the new consumer session.
> > > > >
> > > > > In most cases, all of the affected clients will hit step four
within
> > an
> > > > > interval of a couple of minutes.
> > > > >
> > > > > My current theory is that step four occurs when the client system
> > detects
> > > > > a condition that is viewed as a fatal error in the original
consumer
> > > > > session, triggering the opening of a replacement consumer
session. In
> > > > most
> > > > > cases the TSM server never detects a problem with the original
> > consumer
> > > > > session, and eventually terminates the session after five hours
of
> > > > > inactivity (we have database backups that can legitimately go
through
> > > > long
> > > > > periods with no data transfer). More rarely the TSM server
eventually
> > > > > reports that the original consumer session was severed.
> > > > >
> > > > > We occasionally see cases where the replacement consumer session
is
> > in
> > > > > turn replaced by another new session, and even cases where the
latter
> > > > > session is replaced by yet another session.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our client population is a bit over half Windows, but almost all
> > > > instances
> > > > > of the odd behavior involve only Windows client systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > The affected systems are frequently split between two data
centers,
> > each
> > > > > with its own TSM server.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have usually not found any correlation between the odd TSM
> > behavior
> > > > and
> > > > > issues with other applications. The most recent case was an
> > exception.
> > > > > There were some e-mail delivery failures at about the same time
as
> > step
> > > > > four of the odd TSM behavior. The failures occurred when e-mail
> > servers
> > > > > were unable to perform LDAP queries.
> > > > >
> > > > > When we have asked our Network Operations group to check on
previous
> > > > > occurrences of the odd behavior they have consistently reported
that
> > they
> > > > > found no evidence of a network problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each of our TSM servers runs under zSeries Linux on a z10 BC.
Each
> > server
> > > > > has a VIPA address with two associated network interfaces on
> > different
> > > > > subnets.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would welcome any suggestions for finding the underlying cause
of
> > the
> > > > > odd behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas Denier,
> > > > > Thomas Jefferson University
> > > > > The information contained in this transmission contains
privileged
> > and
> > > > > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the
> > person
> > > > > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby
> > > > notified
> > > > > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of
this
> > > > > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > > > > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all
> > > > copies
> > > > > of the original message.
> > > > >
> > > > > CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication
for
> > > > > emergent or urgent health care matters.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Zoltan Forray*
> > > > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
> > > > Xymon Monitor Administrator
> > > > VMware Administrator (in training)
> > > > Virginia Commonwealth University
> > > > UCC/Office of Technology Services
> > > > www.ucc.vcu.edu
> > > > zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
> > > > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations
will
> > > > never use email to request that you reply with your password,
social
> > > > security number or confidential personal information. For more
details
> > > > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Zoltan Forray*
> TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
> Xymon Monitor Administrator
> VMware Administrator (in training)
> Virginia Commonwealth University
> UCC/Office of Technology Services
> www.ucc.vcu.edu
> zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
> Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
> never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
> security number or confidential personal information. For more details
> visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
>