ADSM-L

Re: Changes to search algorithm for inactive files

2015-10-04 17:59:02
Subject: Re: Changes to search algorithm for inactive files
From: Thomas A. La Porte [SMTP:tlaporte AT ANIM.DREAMWORKS DOT COM]
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Trevor,

There is an open APAR (IX76494) against the v3 server that
specifically deals with this issue. I believe that something
changed with the server code from v2 to v3 which makes the
retrieval of archived files from large filespaces as slow as
molasses in January. The only instance where we have found that
this is not the case is when using the "-description" option,
generally in conjunction with the "-filesonly" option.

There is an index that is built for archived descriptions, and
this has had a huge impact on our ability to do retrieves.
Without the -description option our retrieves would go well into
several hours per retrieve.

 -- Tom

"It's a dog eat dog world,                Thomas A. La Porte
 and I'm wearing milkbone underwear."     DreamWorks SKG
              - Norm Peterson             <tlaporte AT anim.dreamworks DOT com>

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Trevor Foley wrote:

>G'day,
>
>I have a question about the changes made is server V3.1.1.1 that speed
>up the process process when inactive files are concerned. Am I correct
>in assuming that there will be no performance gain from these changes
>when searching for archive, as opposed to backup, files?
>
>We are having reasonably serious performance issues trying to restore
>archive files from filespaces that have large numbers of files on them.
>The worst offender has in excess of 2.2 million files. In one case ADSM
>took in excess of 50 minutes to restore one small file from one of these
>filespaces.
>
>Is there anything coming along that might help us out?
>
>
>Trevor
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------
>Trevor Foley
>Bankers Trust Australia Limited
>Phone: 61-2-9259 3944    Fax: 61-2-9259 2659
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>