• Please help support our sponsors by considering their products and services.
    Our sponsors enable us to serve you with this high-speed Internet connection and fast webservers you are currently using at ADSM.ORG.
    They support this free flow of information and knowledge exchange service at no cost to you.

    Please welcome our latest sponsor Tectrade . We can show our appreciation by learning more about Tectrade Solutions
  • Community Tip: Please Give Thanks to Those Sharing Their Knowledge.

    If you receive helpful answer on this forum, please show thanks to the poster by clicking "LIKE" link for the answer that you found helpful.

  • Community Tip: Forum Rules (PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ BEFORE POSTING)

    Click the link above to access ADSM.ORG Acceptable Use Policy and forum rules which should be observed when using this website. Violators may be banned from this website. This notice will disappear after you have made at least 3 posts.

Command "extend dbspace" rebalances extents inefficiently

krusz

Active Newcomer
#1
Hi,
I got some problem with "extend dbspace reclaimstorage=yes" command. I add new disks for DB2 but rebalancing and reclaiming space process moves extents to new disk in very inefficient way. The tablespace extents are not distributed equally among all disks. It looks like this:
Location Total Space of File System Used Space on File System (MB) Free Space(MB)
(MB)
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
/tsm/oprtsm/db 959,543.97 747,253.86 212,290.12
/tsm/oprtsm/db02 511,931.18 450,431.86 61,499.32
/tsm/oprtsm/db03 511,931.18 450,431.41 61,499.77
/tsm/oprtsm/db04 511,931.18 449,966.97 61,964.21
/tsm/oprtsm/db05 503,962.43 475,515.48 28,446.95
/tsm/oprtsm/db06 503,962.43 163,629.46 340,332.97
/tsm/oprtsm/db07 503,962.43 163,629.45 340,332.98
/tsm/oprtsm/db08 503,962.43 163,629.81 340,332.62

/dev/mapper/tsmvg-tsmdblv 938G 725G 208G 78% /tsm/oprtsm/db
/dev/mapper/tsm02vg-tsmdb02lv 500G 440G 61G 88% /tsm/oprtsm/db02
/dev/mapper/tsm03vg-tsmdb03lv 500G 440G 61G 88% /tsm/oprtsm/db03
/dev/mapper/tsm04vg-tsmdb04lv 500G 440G 61G 88% /tsm/oprtsm/db04
/dev/mapper/tsm05vg-tsmdb05lv 493G 440G 28G 95% /tsm/oprtsm/db05
/dev/mapper/tsm06vg-tsmdb06lv 493G 158G 333G 33% /tsm/oprtsm/db06
/dev/mapper/tsm07vg-tsmdb07lv 493G 158G 333G 33% /tsm/oprtsm/db07
/dev/mapper/tsm08vg-tsmdb08lv 493G 158G 333G 33% /tsm/oprtsm/db08

Do you have any idea what I should do to utilize the space on all disks in the same way?
 

marclant

ADSM.ORG Moderator
#2
It takes a while to rebalance. Plus, it's not possible to evenly rebalance when the filesystems are all of different sizes.

Your best bet to rebalance and to obtain optimal performance from your DB is to do the following:
1. backup the DB
2. recarve your storage to have 8 equal size LUNs mounted to the 8 filesystems
3. restore the DB

Ideally, if you are going to go through that effort of recarving, you are better off to create 12 LUNs mounted to 12 filesystems. That way, the next time you need to extend the database, you can just extend all 12 filesystems by the same amount and won't need a rebalance.

Off topic, extents are unique to container pools. What DB2 is moving is database pages.
 

krusz

Active Newcomer
#3
marclant, thanks for the reply. I know that it takes time to rebalance, in my situation it took 6 hour. Almost all of the disks are the same size, only one of them is different size. I do not plan to recover the DB at the moment, but what I want to do is to connect 4 additional disks, in order to have 12 used by the TSM DB.
Thanks for the explanations.
 

krusz

Active Newcomer
#4
Is it make sense to expand all the disks to the same size (1 TB) and make rebalancing manually at the moment (instead of adding next 4 500 GB disks)?
 

krusz

Active Newcomer
#6
Exactly. I mean that I will expand all filesystems to the same size (1TB) the DB pages are placed on . After this operation I will do:
db2 alter tablespace tablespace_name rebalance
db2 alter tablespace tablespace_name reduce max
Is it correct way of thinkig or should I add new disks (filesystems) as you mentioned above?
 

marclant

ADSM.ORG Moderator
#7
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. If I understand correctly, you would like to extend all current 8 filesystems to 1 TB, for a total of 8 TB.

No, I would not recommend that. If you look at large Blueprint (link in my signature), for databases larger than 4 TB, it's recommended to have 12 DB directories/LUNs of equal size. DB2 does some parallelism of the workload across all the database directories, when the database gets larger, DB2 benefits from more database directories.
 

Advertise at ADSM.ORG

If you are reading this, so are your potential customer. Advertise at ADSM.ORG right now.

UpCloud high performance VPS at $5/month

Get started with $25 in credits on Cloud Servers. You must use link below to receive the credit. Use the promo to get upto 5 month of FREE Linux VPS.

The Spectrum Protect TLA (Three-Letter Acronym): ISP or something else?

  • Every product needs a TLA, Let's call it ISP (IBM Spectrum Protect).

    Votes: 16 18.8%
  • Keep using TSM for Spectrum Protect.

    Votes: 52 61.2%
  • Let's be formal and just say Spectrum Protect

    Votes: 10 11.8%
  • Other (please comement)

    Votes: 7 8.2%

Forum statistics

Threads
31,448
Messages
133,969
Members
21,548
Latest member
cburns
Top