Thomas,
Agree support is not all it could be but I think your management could be
usefully employed in
talking to IBM management, to get your unacceptable support improved.
Unfortunately my experience is that should you switch to a different solution,
you will just end up
with different issues and probably the same complaints about the support.
That said I am in a pretty similar environment running OS390 2,10 and TSM
server 4.2 2 and
our performance is reasonable. So if you were having your severe memory leak
problems back when you were at 4.2.2 the problem may be more site specific.
John
Thomas Denier <thomas.denier AT mail.tju DOT edu> on 01/31/2003 04:51:35 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu>
To: adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu
cc: (bcc: John Naylor/HAV/SSE)
Subject: TSM support issues
We have a 4.2.3.2 TSM server running under OS/390. We expect to add more
TSM clients, and the workloads on two other mainframe applicatios are
increasing. The mainframe is already short of real memory, and is heading
rapidly for shortages of CPU capacity and network bandwidth. One of the
options being discussed is moving the TSM server to AIX. At least one
manager has argued that we should consider migrating to a different
enterprise backup solution. One of his arguments is that we are getting
poor quality code and poor support.
We have been struggling with one or more memory leaks for a couple of
months. Patch level upgrades have improved performance somewhat, but have
not fixed the problem. We are still finding it necessary to restart the
TSM server twice a day to maintain acceptable performance.
Back when we decided to upgrade to the 4.2.3.2 level I went to the
anonymous FTP server and found a text file referring me to the TSM server
README for information on a password protected FTP server. The
information was not in the README file, so I sent out a query on this
list and opened a severity 2 incident with IBM/Tivoli. I started getting
responses from the list in a couple of hours. IBM/Tivoli finally saw fit
to contact me after five days.
We have since opened another serverity 2 incident for the apparent
memory leak. It has typically taken days of repeated calls to get
administrative responses, such as confirmation that dumps were
received. It took weeks to get a substantive technical response.
We were recently told that our symptoms match open APAR PQ69840. I got
a copy of the APAR description. The alleged match is so poor that I
am struggling to convince myself that the claim was a mistake and not
a deliberate lie.
I welcome any suggestions for rebutting the argument that it is time
to look for a product with better code and better support.
**********************************************************************
The information in this E-Mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It may not represent the views of Scottish and Southern
Energy plc.
It is intended solely for the addressees. Access to this E-Mail by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient,
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any unauthorised recipient should advise the sender immediately of
the error in transmission.
Scottish Hydro-Electric, Southern Electric, SWALEC and S+S
are trading names of the Scottish and Southern Energy Group.
**********************************************************************
|
