Re: [ADSM-L] Extra client sessions

Thanks for the info.  Yes the user does(did) have RESOURCEUTILIZATION 4
configured.

I note the APAR you refer to is still open. It refers to v7.1 but how far
back does it go?  The client recently upgrade all of his nodes to 7.1.6.2,
the latest available for Linux - not sure what level he was at when I first
saw this issue.

As I said, I always though if MAXNUMPOINTS was set to 1 (the default), then
what you specified for RESOURCEUTILZATION was ignored and you were only
supposed to get 2-sessions?  Am I wrong in this assumption?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Andrew Raibeck <storman AT us.ibm DOT com> 
wrote:

> Yes, do not use a RESOURCEUTILIZATION higher than the MAXNUMMP setting.
>
> Having said that, there is an APAR that might ("might" is the operative
> word!) be a match for this issue, IT16004:
>
> https://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IT16004
>
> In this case, the symptom is seeing more consumer sessions than you would
> expect given the RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting. Even if the specific symptoms
> described in the APAR do not match your scenario, if no other logical
> explanation fits, it might stil be a match. You can contact support for
> further problem determination assistance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andy
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> ________________
>
> Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
> IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
> Product support:
> https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/
> tivoli_storage_manager
>
> Online documentation:
> http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/
> landing/welcome_ssgsg7.html
>
> Product Wiki:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%
> 20Storage%20Manager
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2016-08-31
> 17:22:19:
>
> > From: Karel Bos <tsm.wad AT GMAIL DOT COM>
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> >
> > Might want to check resourceutil settings as that limits the number of
> > sessions clients try to setup. It should match maxnummp or be lower.
> >
> > Op 31 aug. 2016 22:21 schreef "Zoltan Forray" <zforray AT vcu DOT edu>:
> >
> > > AHA - so I am not loosing my mind (at least in this situation).  I too
> have
> > > been seeing clients getting >3-sessions eventhough the NODE
> maxnumpoints is
> > > 1!  I was always under the impression that maxnumpoints trumps
> > > resourceutilization.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Denier <
> > > Thomas.Denier AT jefferson DOT edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We are occasionally seeing some odd behavior in our TSM environment.
> > > >
> > > > We write incoming client files to sequential disk storage pools.
> Almost
> > > > all of our client nodes use the default maxnummp value of 1.
> > > >
> > > > When the odd behavior occurs, a number of clients will go through the
> > > > following sequence of events:
> > > > 1.The TSM server will send a request to start a backup.
> > > > 2.The client will almost immediately open a TCP connection to be used
> as
> > > a
> > > > producer session (a session used to obtain information from the TSM
> > > > database).
> > > > 3.Somewhere between tens of seconds and a few minutes later the
> client
> > > > will open a TCP connection to be used as a consumer session (a
> session
> > > used
> > > > to send copies of new and changed files).
> > > > 4.Sometime later the client will open a third TCP connection and
> start
> > > > using it as a consumer session.
> > > > 5.The TSM server will report large numbers of transaction failures
> > > because
> > > > it considers the original consumer session to be tying up the one
> mount
> > > > point allowed for the node and hence has no way of storing files
> arriving
> > > > on the new consumer session.
> > > >
> > > > In most cases, all of the affected clients will hit step four within
> an
> > > > interval of a couple of minutes.
> > > >
> > > > My current theory is that step four occurs when the client system
> detects
> > > > a condition that is viewed as a fatal error in the original consumer
> > > > session, triggering the opening of a replacement consumer session. In
> > > most
> > > > cases the TSM server never detects a problem with the original
> consumer
> > > > session, and eventually terminates the session after five hours of
> > > > inactivity (we have database backups that can legitimately go through
> > > long
> > > > periods with no data transfer). More rarely the TSM server eventually
> > > > reports that the original consumer session was severed.
> > > >
> > > > We occasionally see cases where the replacement consumer session is
> in
> > > > turn replaced by another new session, and even cases where the latter
> > > > session is replaced by yet another session.
> > > >
> > > > Our client population is a bit over half Windows, but almost all
> > > instances
> > > > of the odd behavior involve only Windows client systems.
> > > >
> > > > The affected systems are frequently split between two data centers,
> each
> > > > with its own TSM server.
> > > >
> > > > We have usually not found any correlation between the odd TSM
> behavior
> > > and
> > > > issues with other applications. The most recent case was an
> exception.
> > > > There were some e-mail delivery failures at about the same time as
> step
> > > > four of the odd TSM behavior. The failures occurred when e-mail
> servers
> > > > were unable to perform LDAP queries.
> > > >
> > > > When we have asked our Network Operations group to check on previous
> > > > occurrences of the odd behavior they have consistently reported that
> they
> > > > found no evidence of a network problem.
> > > >
> > > > Each of our TSM servers runs under zSeries Linux on a z10 BC. Each
> server
> > > > has a VIPA address with two associated network interfaces on
> different
> > > > subnets.
> > > >
> > > > I would welcome any suggestions for finding the underlying cause of
> the
> > > > odd behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Denier,
> > > > Thomas Jefferson University
> > > > The information contained in this transmission contains privileged
> and
> > > > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the
> person
> > > > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > > notified
> > > > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this
> > > > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > > > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
> > > copies
> > > > of the original message.
> > > >
> > > > CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for
> > > > emergent or urgent health care matters.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Zoltan Forray*
> > > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
> > > Xymon Monitor Administrator
> > > VMware Administrator (in training)
> > > Virginia Commonwealth University
> > > UCC/Office of Technology Services
> > > www.ucc.vcu.edu
> > > zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
> > > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
> > > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
> > > security number or confidential personal information. For more details
> > > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
> > >
> >
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
Xymon Monitor Administrator
VMware Administrator (in training)
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
www.ucc.vcu.edu
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html