ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] 5.4 performance issues

2008-03-17 17:30:38
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] 5.4 performance issues
From: Steve Roder <spr AT BUFFALO DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:29:05 -0400
> Steve Roder wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >      I wonder, with so many months passing since 5.4 has gone GA, and no
> > usuable, secure 5.4 client, will IBM be extending support of 5.3?
> >

Remco Post <r.post AT PLCS DOT NL> wrote:
> so let's look at that question.
>
> Support means that IBM will fix any problems you have in running the
> code. Since apperently, you have no problems running the latest 5.3
> client, would you need support? With current performance issues you're
> better off running 5.3 'without' support that 5.4 or 5.5. If you ever
> run into problems, IBM will first ask you to upgrade to an supported
> client-level before thay will be able to help you with your problems.
>
> There is a saying in IT: 'Never f*ck with a running system', and that
> holds here as well. Don't upgrade a perfectly functioning client. It
> won't stop working on april 1st, really.

We were forced to upgrade to mitigate a known and published security
issue with dsmcad, once we determined that we needed to setup dsmcad to do
web based restores.  That was the main basis for our upgrading, and not
the 4/30 EOS for 5.3.

Going to the latest 5.4 that had that fixed made the most sense, which
turns out to have a nasty performance bug.



Steve Roder

> >      We are in the process of testing 5.3.5.5, as it fixes the security
> > issue in dsmcad, and does not have the preformance issues of 5.4.x.   And
> > then in less than 7 weeks, we will be unsupported.
> >
> > Steve Roder
> > University at Buffalo
> > (spr AT buffalo DOT edu | (716)645-3564)
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Dave Canan wrote:
> >>          IBM has had several customers reporting this performance issue
> >> after upgrading to level 5.4. APAR IC53531 was originally opened for this
> >> for the NetWare platform only. We are now also seeing the same issue for
> >> this APAR for customers on UNIX platforms as well. (However, this APAR does
> >> not apply to Windows platforms.) For Netware, the interim fix is 5.4.1.4. I
> >> do not have the date for the UNIX platforms yet.
> >>
> >>
> >> At 05:02 PM 3/14/2008 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>>      We recently upgraded the TSM clients on our cryus imap servers from
> >>> 5.3.0.12 to 5.4.1.2 (and then 5.4.1.5), and since that upgrade, we have
> >>> seen the backups of about 4.5million files in each of our 12 spools go
> >> >from about 2.5 hours to approx. 4 days (had we let it run to completion).
> >>> Anyone else seeing issues with 5.4.x on Solaris clients with millions of
> >>> files?
> >>>
> >>> Other vitals:
> >>>  Server: 5.4.1.2 on AIX
> >>>  Network: GB
> >>>
> >>>  Client OS Solaris 2.9
> >>>   Filesystems are VxFS on an Hitachi 9960.
> >>>
> >>> We have opened a PMR with IBM, and they want to run some traces, but we
> >>> have since reverted back to 5.3.0.12, and our 2.5hr backups.
> >>>
> >>> We need to run 5.4 to stay supported, and a minimum of 5.4.1.2 for the
> >>> fix for the security issues in dsmcad, which we use for email restores on
> >>> these systems.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance for any insights anyone can provide.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Steve Roder
> >>> University at Buffalo
> >>> (spr AT buffalo DOT edu | (716)645-3564)
> >> Dave Canan
> >> TSM Performance
> >> IBM Advanced Technical Support
> >> ddcanan AT us.ibm DOT com
>
>
> --
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>
> Remco Post
>
>

Steve Roder
University at Buffalo
(spr AT buffalo DOT edu | (716)645-3564)