unsubescribe

Daniel Geschwind Basso
Cooperativa Central Gaúcha Ltda
Tecnologia da Informação - Grupo CCGL
55 3321 9400
daniel AT ccgl.com DOT br
dgbrs_25 AT hotmail DOT com


2013/10/16 Hans Christian Riksheim <bullhcr AT gmail DOT com>

> Thanks. Setting resourceutilization 2 helped since there was two big
> filesystems on that server. It still used a lot of memory(700MB) while at
> the same time having a 1.7G diskcache file for reasons unknown but I won't
> investigate that further. I also had to set TXNBYTELIMIT down from 2G to
> 256MB to make the backup go through. Not sure if that parameter was the
> direct cause for another error(ANS0361I DIAG: calloc()) or if it was
> random. Getting a mental grip on the relation between cause and effect
> isn't always easy with TSM.
>
> Regards
>
> Hans Chr.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Prather, Wanda <Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com
> >wrote:
>
> > If someone has put RESOURCEUTILIZATION in the dsm.opt, remove it or
> > specify 2, so that the client isn't trying to do multiple filesystems at
> > once.  (That, of course, will slow things down.  But will use less
> memory.)
> >
> > You can also just use a different machine with more memory.
> > I had a similar problem - an old client, memory starved, old application
> > everybody was afraid to touch.
> > Until we could get the machine converted to a VM, I had to resort to
> using
> > a proxy machine to do the backup via UNC name (CIFS) .
> >
> > Proxy backups aren't a perfect solution, either, because CIFS can be too
> > slow in traversing the directory structure across the network.  But
> > sometimes you can get around that by using multiple proxies, one for each
> > filesystem, if it isn't one big filesystem.
> >
> > Or a combination of strategies:  -incrbydate on a daily basis, then a
> > long-running, proxied backup without -incrbydate on the weekend?
> >
> > W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On 
> > Behalf Of
> > Paul Zarnowski
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:17 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] how is memoryefficient diskcachemethod supposed to
> > work
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be!), the diskcachemethod works
> > on a directory by directory basis.  If you have a lot of objects in one
> > "flat" directory (without subdirectories), it may not help that much.
> >  Alternatively, if your volume is spread well (deeply) across lots of
> > directories, then it will be more helpful.
> >
> >  From the User's Guide:
> > >Note that for file systems with large numbers (millions) of directories,
> > the client still might not be able to allocate enough memory to perform
> > incremental backup with memoryefficientbackup yes.
> >
> >
> > Another option would be to use -incrbydate, but that has its own caveats.
> >
> > ..Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:29 AM 10/14/2013, Hans Christian Riksheim wrote:
> > >We have a memory starved Windows 2003 server and incremental fails with
> > >"ANS1030E The operating system refused a TSM request for memory
> > allocation."
> > >
> > >So we try memoryefficient diskcachemethod.
> > >
> > >What we see is that dsmc reports diskcachemethod is in use for all
> > >filesystems. We also see that the diskcachelocation is populated.
> > >
> > >However the dsmc process still increases to 1,3GB and eventually dies
> > >with the error message above. Client is 6.4.0.10 32.bit.
> > >
> > >Any ideas before I raise a PMR?
> > >
> > >Hans Chr. Riksheim
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Zarnowski                            Ph: 607-255-4757
> > Manager of Storage Services               Fx: 607-255-8521
> > IT at Cornell / Infrastructure            Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu
> > 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
> >
>