Author: Alan Davenport <Alan.Davenport AT SELECTIVE DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:46:23 -0500
Hello, We're running TSM v5.1.5.4 on an IBM 20660A2 processor running OS390 v10. There is a 100Mbit, single port OSA card on the processor. We are backing up 197 clients per night. MAXSCHEDSESSIONS i
Author: John Naylor <john.naylor AT SCOTTISH-SOUTHERN.CO DOT UK>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:48:06 +0000
Alan, We are TSM 4.2.2 region=512M on os390 2.10 with gigabit osa My summary stats from last night for 102 clients show TOTAL FILES BACKED UP: 214388 TOTAL MEGABYTES BACKED UP: 106219 TOTAL NETWORK T
Author: "MC Matt Cooper (2838)" <Matt.Cooper AT AMGREETINGS DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:03:50 -0500
Alan, As can be expected there is got to be a dozen different things to look at. However, from what you have said so far I would cut the maximum number of concurrent session in half. I found that whe
Author: "Darby, Mark" <Mark.Darby AT HQ.DOE DOT GOV>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:02:38 -0500
Hello, Al. We have much to share. We are OS/390 2.10 on a 7060-H50 (~120 MIPS) with approx. 100Mbit network connectivity and have had many, long-standing TSM performance problems. We are currently ru
Is your system memory-constrained? Are you experiencing high paging rates? It's possible that increasing TSM's memory demand increases paging to a point where overall system performance goes down the
Author: Alan Davenport <Alan.Davenport AT SELECTIVE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:05:05 -0500
Hello All, many thanks to all who responded to my inquiry. It looks like Mark's response, item #2, was the answer. I had my region size at 1280M and TSM was running just awful. I had a phone conversa
Author: Bill Kelly <kellywh AT MAIL.AUBURN DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:48:37 -0600
Hi, We seem to be experiencing symptoms similar (identical?) to Alan's. We're at z/OS 1.2, running on a 2066-002 w/ 8GB of memory and virtually no paging; TSM is at 4.2.3.0.; database is 55% of 106 G
Author: Alan Davenport <Alan.Davenport AT SELECTIVE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:40:40 -0500
Hi Bill, Another thing that came up in our discussion was that the DB buffpoolsize should not exceed 131072 (128K). You might want to try that was well. Sounds like you have little to lose, like I di
Author: PAC Brion Arnaud <Arnaud.Brion AT PANALPINA DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:44:19 +0100
Hi all, I followed your discussion with much interest, as I'm suffering from huge performance problem problem too. Unfortunately I'm not under OS390, but using AIX 4.3.3 : could someone tell me if th
Author: Rodney clark <Rodney.Clark AT INGBANK DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:19:50 -0500
Post us some details iostat vmstat and how much memory disks e.t.c. The big quick win on AIX is vmtune -p5 -P10 But I guess you a.ready know that. Hi all, I followed your discussion with much interes
Arnaud - Your posting did not say whether you've first pursued the recommendations in the TSM Performance Tuning Guide. If you are not also the AIX systems programmer at your site, you should confer
Author: Bill Kelly <kellywh AT MAIL.AUBURN DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:58:41 -0600
Hi, I wanted to clarify, or perhaps retract, something about the 'show memu SHORT' command that has been mentioned in this thread. Not surprisingly, the numbers you get from this command vary dependi
Author: PAC Brion Arnaud <Arnaud.Brion AT PANALPINA DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:08:01 +0100
Hi Rodney, The big picture : System : aix 4.3.3.0 on a 6h1 machine, 2Gb memory, 2 cpu Vmtune settings : -p10 -P40 -R 256 -F376 -W256 -s1 TSM version : 4.2.3.1 Bufpoolsize : 524288 Iostat: tty: tin to
Author: PAC Brion Arnaud <Arnaud.Brion AT PANALPINA DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:46:12 +0100
Richard, I totally agree with you, but if I tell you that my current situation happened due to the "help" from IBM support, what would you answer ? I had a rock solid system running TSM 4.2.2.1, unti
Author: Alan Davenport <Alan.Davenport AT SELECTIVE DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:10:45 -0500
Hi, I hoped I made it clear it was pure supposition as to what the number meant. (: I'm trying to make sense of why, by reducing my region size by 768M performance increased dramatically. My daily ma
I'd agree with your frustration, Arnaud, given the premium price being paid to a top vendor. Generally, though, unless a vendor specialist is one I know, who is familiar with my site, I accept the a
Author: Rodney clark <Rodney.Clark AT INGBANK DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:20:10 -0500
Well you dont mention the stripe size used for the database and logs file systems. We had our database and log on a striped filesystem and we had a really bad expire perf srtipe size was 64 kb. Are t
Author: John Naylor <john.naylor AT SCOTTISH-SOUTHERN.CO DOT UK>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:56:56 +0000
I am resending this to the list, because I only copied it to Bill earlier, and the thread is still going so there may be some interest in it -- Forwarded by John Naylor/HAV/SSE on 02/14/2003 03:54 PM
Author: "Darby, Mark" <Mark.Darby AT HQ.DOE DOT GOV>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:38:52 -0500
Hello, Bill. I fully concur with your statement - i.e., that "As has been pointed out..., unless you know how to interpret the numbers, they're just that - a bunch of numbers.". This tool (i.e. show
Author: Paul Ripke <stixpjr AT BIGPOND.NET DOT AU>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:53:59 +1100
On Friday, Feb 14, 2003, at 19:44 Australia/Sydney, PAC Brion Arnaud wrote: Hi all, I followed your discussion with much interest, as I'm suffering from huge performance problem problem too. Unfortun