My main concern about ADSM subtasks, is that if I start a SCHEDULED
backup to start at 10pm, with 700+ nodes in the schedule, and the window is NOT
RANDOMIZED (which we are investigating), could ADSM start up as many 'daughter'
subtasks as MVS will allow, each daughter subtask having equal access to a CP
engine?  It's quite possible with our MVS high priority assigned to ADSM, that
the CP's will all be utilized by the ADSM TCB and sub-TCB's, leaving almost
everyone else out to dry.

Bil McKinley

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Reply to Re: ADSM subtasking
Author:  Rick Tsujimoto <rtsujimoto AT CUSA.CANON DOT COM> at UNIXGTWY
Date:    3/12/97 3:36 PM


     I'm assuming you're able to start multiple backup sessions which run
     concurrently. Something that's cpu-bound may tend to drive the same cpu
     if no interrupt is experienced; that's how a cpu-bound program behaves.
      It may very well be that Q OCC * * is cpu-bound; it could be by (bad?)
     design.

     Rick


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Reply to Re: ADSM subtasking
Author:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> at ~internet
Date:    3/12/97 3:18 PM


*** Original Author:  ADSM-L @ MARIST - ** Remote User **; 03/12/97 11:34am

>Received: from VM.MARIST.EDU by AUDUCADM.DUC.AUBURN.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V3R1)
>   with TCP; Wed, 12 Mar 97 11:34:03 CST
>Received: from VM.MARIST.EDU by VM.MARIST.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
>   with BSMTP id 0781; Wed, 12 Mar 97 12:17:04 EST
>Received: from VM.MARIST.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@MARIST) by VM.MARIST.EDU
> (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with BSMTP id 9629; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:17:00 -0500
>Received: from VM.MARIST.EDU by VM.MARIST.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8c) with NJE
>          id 6941 for ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:16:57 
> -0500
>Received: from MARIST (NJE origin SMTP@MARIST) by VM.MARIST.EDU (LMail
>          V1.2b/1.8b) with BSMTP id 9613; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:16:57 -0500
>Received: from gatekeeper.canon.com by VM.MARIST.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with
>          TCP; Wed, 12 Mar 97 12:16:51 EST
>Received: by gatekeeper.canon.com; id JAA09856; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:18:45 -0800
>          (PST)
>Received: from unknown(146.184.100.100) by gatekeeper.canon.com via smap (3.2)
>          id xma009759; Wed, 12 Mar 97 09:18:17 -0800
>Received: from smtpgwy1.cusa.canon.com by edpsv001.cusa.canon.com with SMTP
>          (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA055057096; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:18:16 -0500
>Received: from ccMail by smtpgwy1.cusa.canon.com id AA858197984; Wed, 12 Mar 97
>          12:16:06 est
>Message-ID:  <9703128581.AA858197984 AT smtpgwy1.cusa.canon DOT com>
>Date:         Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:16:06 EST
>Reply-To:     "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>Sender:       "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>From:         Rick Tsujimoto <rtsujimoto AT CUSA.CANON DOT COM>
>Subject:      Re: ADSM subtasking question\
>To:           ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
     If you use Omegamon's INSPECT feature, you'll multiple MVS TCBs.


  *---------------------------------------------------*
  *  Rick Tsujimoto                                   *
  *                                                   *
  *  rtsujimoto AT cusa.canon DOT com                        *
  *                                                   *
  *  tel: 516-328-4554                                *
  *  fax: 516-328-4369                                *
  *---------------------------------------------------*




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: ADSM subtasking question\
Author:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> at ~internet
Date:    3/12/97 11:28 AM


     We run ADSM 2.1.0.9 on MVS with a variety of clients.
     My question is...

     When multiple clients are backing up files simultaneously,
     does ADSM subtask in the proper MVS way?
     or are the tasks handled within the ADSM main task?



     Bil McKinley
     Merrill Lynch & Co.
     BILMCKINLEY AT ML DOT COM
     212.647.2083

*** Comments From: STEWAJM - Stewart, Mike; 03/12/97 01:00pm

It seems pretty well restricted to one processor, as far as
I can tell from both observed performance and RMF.  We have a
multi-procesor machine but ADSM seems to retrict itselft to
one processor at a time.

Some of the admin commands can cause it to start using
100% of 1 processor.  When that is going on, client access
as well as other administor access basically stops.

A 'query occ * *', for example, will start ADSM spinning one
CPU, at which time we can't start any new admin or
backup session until it completes.  Even though there are
plenty of other processors available.

Based on observed behavior such as the above, ADSM/MVS doesn't
seem heavily multi-tasked.