ADSM-L

Re: %Util vs %Migr

1998-12-18 12:42:32
Subject: Re: %Util vs %Migr
From: Joel Fuhrman <joelf AT CAC.WASHINGTON DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:42:32 -0800
Do the following after you've migrated everything to tape:
1) query volume stg=THE_NOW_NONCACHED_POOL_NAME

Doing one at a time, for each volume name whose Pct Util is not zero, do:
2) move data NONZERO_PCT_UTIL_VOLUME_NAME

If the data is migrated to tape, each move data should take a few seconds.

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Moir,Betsy wrote:

> Sorry -  I forgot to mention that we turned caching off.  That's why we
> expected to see %UTIL and %MIGR figures to be about the same most of the
> time.  Any other thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu on 12/17/98 03:29:06 PM
> Please respond to ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu @ INTERNET
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu @ INTERNET
> cc:
> Subject: Re: %Util vs %Migr
>
> Betsy--If I remember correctly if you are caching on your disk storage
> pool, the cached files will show up in the %UTIL column.  They are
> taking up space, but would not be migrated.
>
> Jim Bohnsack
> Raytheon Systems Co.
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Moir,Betsy[SMTP:betsy.moir AT ABBOTT DOT COM]
> > Sent:         Thursday, December 17, 1998 3:00 PM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      %Util vs %Migr
> >
> > My ADSM VM server support person and I have been tracking our disk
> > stgpool
> > volume usage for the last week or so.  The figures we are seeing
> > regularly
> > are %UTIL is consistently about 32% higher than %Migr  (37% Util vs.
> > 5%
> > Migr).  We run with thresholds of 90% and 70% from 5am until 9pm at
> > which
> > time they drop down to 10% and 5% to encourage migration.  We are
> > concerned
> > that the %Util figures and %Migr figures do not run generally about
> > the
> > same.  We are currently running an audit volume on each of our volumes
> > to see
> > if there is any damage on any of the volumes that might be causing
> > this
> > discrepancy.  All volumes are varied online.
> >
> > Any suggestions or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
> >
>
>
>
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>