1. 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.
  2. 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.

Fragmetation issue on TSM

Discussion in 'TSM Operation' started by Rajatsm, May 3, 2017.

  1. Rajatsm

    Rajatsm ADSM.ORG Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    TSM Admin
    Location:
    Delhi
    Hi All,

    Need a support to resolve below error:

    Date/Time Message
    -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
    2017-05-03 15:58:27 ANR0984I Process 1814 for MOVE DATA started in the
    BACKGROUND at 15:58:27. (SESSION: 396129, PROCESS: 1814)
    2017-05-03 15:58:27 ANR1140I Move data process started for volume H06161L3
    (process ID 1814). (SESSION: 396129, PROCESS: 1814)
    2017-05-03 15:58:27 ANR3247W Process 1814 skipped 2 files on volume H06161L3
    because of pending fragments. (SESSION: 396129, PROCESS:
    1814)
    2017-05-03 15:58:27 ANR1141I Move data process ended for volume H06161L3.
    (SESSION: 396129, PROCESS: 1814)
    2017-05-03 15:58:27 ANR0985I Process 1814 for MOVE DATA running in the
    BACKGROUND completed with completion state SUCCESS at
    15:58:27. (SESSION: 396129, PROCESS: 1814)

    Due to Fragmentation issue, Backup copy pool, Move data are getting effected. PMR suggested to upgrade TSM to 7.1.7.0 to 7.1.7.1, which was performed 2 weeks back, but still same issue.

    Now need a support to fix this. Please help.
     
  2.  
  3. marclant

    marclant ADSM.ORG Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    346
    Occupation:
    Accelerated Value Specialist for Spectrum Protect
    Location:
    Canada
    My suggestion would be to follow-up on that PMR.
     
  4. opeth

    opeth ADSM.ORG Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just did a quick google of the warning message, ANR3247W and there are several ways that could happen with a few solutions.
    Also, should go IBM to ask for "support to fix this" probably.
     
  5. Rajatsm

    Rajatsm ADSM.ORG Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    TSM Admin
    Location:
    Delhi
    IBM PMR suggested for upgrade, that is already done. But still no result.
    What are few solution? share let me try those if that can help.
     
  6. Rajatsm

    Rajatsm ADSM.ORG Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    TSM Admin
    Location:
    Delhi
    Guys, any solution for Fragmentation. I am still on same page.
     
  7. michael.malitz@mm-it.at

    michael.malitz@mm-it.at ADSM.ORG Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    TSM Trainer - Project Manager
    Location:
    Vienna
    Hallo Rajatsm

    I think, that MARCLANT is absolutely right: - you have to insist and follow-up on that PMR.

    Additional Remarks:

    The two following SWg - Support Infos

    1.) http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IT13236 and
    2.) http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IT03650

    describe also "pending fragments" related issues which should have been fixed.........but.........

    There exist also an undocumented option for the FRAGMENT SIZE:

    if you do a q node xxx f=d you will see the value "SPLITLARGEObjects yes".
    This is related to the FRAGMENT SIZE a node can have.

    There is an undocumented option: MAXFRAGMENTSIZE which describe and can influence the value:

    q opt MAXFRAGMENTSIZE (with SETOPT you can change this value)

    May be you can ask IBM, if it makes sense to reduce this value...

    Not a final solution, but that's all what comes into my mind...

    rgds Michael
     

Share This Page