• 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.

Odd storage pool bug?

jamesmacd40

ADSM.ORG Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Points
0
running TSM 7.1.7.0 seeing an odd issue that when reclamation is happening on a stg pool that contains dedup.
Using traditional storage pools (no container pools) - identify processes run all the time.
Reclaim on a storage pool was started with a threshold of 75. volume 0000c065.bfs is showing 100% full with 76% reclaimable, however it was last written to yesterday so it is all new data.

issuing q vol against the volume during reclaim , the %util goes down and % reclaim goes up, but once % reclaim hits 100%, it goes to 26.

the thought is the original 76% reclaimable is calculated incorrectly, it should be near 0 and should not be picked for reclamation as it was just written to the day before. This weird bug ends up moving 100s of GB of data for no reason and takes a long time

pretty sure Deduplication is causing this, because this doesnt happen on a non-dedup pool during reclamation.

just wondering if anyone has seen this behavior and if there are any work around.. none of the 7.1.7.xxx fixes reference this and we are stuck at this version for 2 reasons.. Not ready for 7.1.8 or 7.1.9 due to the enhanced security features, and we are running on W2K8(limits the version we can go to) with non ideal disk structure for db and logs to upgrade any further...

thanks
 

Attachments

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: 19 19.0%
  • Keep using TSM for Spectrum Protect.

    Votes: 61 61.0%
  • Let's be formal and just say Spectrum Protect

    Votes: 12 12.0%
  • Other (please comement)

    Votes: 8 8.0%

Forum statistics

Threads
31,773
Messages
135,482
Members
21,760
Latest member
DanielVIera
Top