Re: Extra client sessions
Among places like https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7_7.1.1/com.ibm.itsm.srv.doc/t_simulwrite_client_mountpts.html "A client session requires a mount point to store data to a sequential-access storage pool." DP is random access. 2016-09-07 15:35 GMT+02:00 Zoltan Forray : > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Karel Bos wrote: > > > maxnummp is ignored when going to random access storage like disk pool. > > > > Say what? Where is that documented? From the book: > > *Server settings take precedence over client settings. If the client > resourceutilization option value exceeds the value of the server MAXNUMMP > setting for a node, you are limited to the number of sessions that are > specified by the MAXNUMMP parameter.* > > Also from the book (we have to guess what number it comes up with): > > *The setting of the resourceutilization option and internal heuristics > determine whether new consumer sessions are started.* > > > -- > *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 > zfor...@vcu.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 >
Re: Extra client sessions
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Karel Bos wrote: > maxnummp is ignored when going to random access storage like disk pool. > Say what? Where is that documented? From the book: *Server settings take precedence over client settings. If the client resourceutilization option value exceeds the value of the server MAXNUMMP setting for a node, you are limited to the number of sessions that are specified by the MAXNUMMP parameter.* Also from the book (we have to guess what number it comes up with): *The setting of the resourceutilization option and internal heuristics determine whether new consumer sessions are started.* -- *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 zfor...@vcu.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
Re: Extra client sessions
> (ASNODENAME b)? You need to ensure that the target node name has the > > limited MAXNUMMP when proxied backups are performed. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-07 > > 08:19:42: > > > > > From: Zoltan Forray > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Date: 2016-09-07 08:29 > > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" > > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > But my point is that the user is getting whatever they set for > > > RESOURCEUTILIZATION vs what I set for MAXNUMPOINT, without the noise. > > This > > > user is running 4-multi terabyte backup streams since they set > > > RESOURCEUTILIZATION 5 while I still have MAXNUMPOINT set to 1/default. > > > > > > The users aren't supposed to be able to override the server > > > settings/maximums. It would be anarchy! > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Raibeck > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Zoltan, > > > > > > > > Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default > > > > RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, > you > > may > > > > see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount > points. > > The > > > > client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I > suggest > > > > making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, > you > > have > > > > the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual > > expectations > > > > are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client > requests). > > > > Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the > > > > operation if the settings are mismatched. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-01 > > > > 08:40:33: > > > > > > > > > From: Zoltan Forray > > > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > > > Date: 2016-09-01 08:43 > > > > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions > > > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > &g
Re: Extra client sessions
t; 20Storage%20Manager
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 2016-09-07
> 08:19:42:
>
> > From: Zoltan Forray
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 2016-09-07 08:29
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > But my point is that the user is getting whatever they set for
> > RESOURCEUTILIZATION vs what I set for MAXNUMPOINT, without the noise.
> This
> > user is running 4-multi terabyte backup streams since they set
> > RESOURCEUTILIZATION 5 while I still have MAXNUMPOINT set to 1/default.
> >
> > The users aren't supposed to be able to override the server
> > settings/maximums. It would be anarchy!
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Raibeck
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Zoltan,
> > >
> > > Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default
> > > RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, you
> may
> > > see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount points.
> The
> > > client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I suggest
> > > making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, you
> have
> > > the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual
> expectations
> > > are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client requests).
> > > Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the
> > > operation if the settings are mismatched.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-01
> > > 08:40:33:
> > >
> > > > From: Zoltan Forray
> > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > > Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> > > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > _
Re: Extra client sessions
Hi Zoltan,
Is your user doing proxied sessions? If yes, where is the MAXNUMMP
configured: on the agent node (NODENAME a)? Or the target node
(ASNODENAME b)? You need to ensure that the target node name has the
limited MAXNUMMP when proxied backups are performed.
Best regards,
Andy
Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-07
08:19:42:
> From: Zoltan Forray
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 2016-09-07 08:29
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> But my point is that the user is getting whatever they set for
> RESOURCEUTILIZATION vs what I set for MAXNUMPOINT, without the noise.
This
> user is running 4-multi terabyte backup streams since they set
> RESOURCEUTILIZATION 5 while I still have MAXNUMPOINT set to 1/default.
>
> The users aren't supposed to be able to override the server
> settings/maximums. It would be anarchy!
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Raibeck
wrote:
>
> > Hi Zoltan,
> >
> > Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default
> > RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, you
may
> > see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount points.
The
> > client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I suggest
> > making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, you
have
> > the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual
expectations
> > are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client requests).
> > Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the
> > operation if the settings are mismatched.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-01
> > 08:40:33:
> >
> > > From: Zoltan Forray
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> > >
> > > 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
> > 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 pr
Re: Extra client sessions
Hi Andy,
But my point is that the user is getting whatever they set for
RESOURCEUTILIZATION vs what I set for MAXNUMPOINT, without the noise. This
user is running 4-multi terabyte backup streams since they set
RESOURCEUTILIZATION 5 while I still have MAXNUMPOINT set to 1/default.
The users aren't supposed to be able to override the server
settings/maximums. It would be anarchy!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Raibeck wrote:
> Hi Zoltan,
>
> Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default
> RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, you may
> see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount points. The
> client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I suggest
> making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, you have
> the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual expectations
> are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client requests).
> Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the
> operation if the settings are mismatched.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-01
> 08:40:33:
>
> > From: Zoltan Forray
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> >
> > 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
> 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 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-08-31
> > > 17:22:19:
> > >
> > > > From: Karel Bos
> > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> > > >
> > > > Might want to check resourceutil settings as that limits the number
> of
> > > > sessions clients try to setup. It should match maxnummp or be
Re: Extra client sessions
Hi Zoltan,
Yes, if MAXNUMMP is too low to accommodate a non-default
RESOURCEUTILIZATION value, then while the backup should work okay, you may
see some warning messages about there being insufficient mount points. The
client will continue, albeit with fewer sessions. This is why I suggest
making sure that if you have a higher RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting, you have
the MAXNUMMP to avoid the "noise", and make sure that mutual expectations
are met (the server is configured to deliver what the client requests).
Regardless, though, you are right, in the end it's not fatal to the
operation if the settings are mismatched.
Best regards,
Andy
Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-09-01
08:40:33:
> From: Zoltan Forray
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> 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
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 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-08-31
> > 17:22:19:
> >
> > > From: Karel Bos
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> > >
> > > 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" :
> > >
> > > > 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.den...@jefferson.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
Re: 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 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 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-08-31
> 17:22:19:
>
> > From: Karel Bos
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> >
> > 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" :
> >
> > > 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.den...@jefferson.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
> >
Re: Extra client sessions
We see this behavior. It happens once per week or so, usually with Windows servers, but not exclusively. I've seen servers with 20-30-40 sessions. It happens with enough regularity that I put in a script that kills all sessions to a server with has more than 10 sessions. The only cause we've ever identified for some of these situations (and the worse occurrences of this situation) is firewall setup problems. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Denier Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:41 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: *EXTERNAL* Extra client sessions 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.
Re: Extra client sessions
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 | stor...@us.ibm.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" wrote on 2016-08-31
17:22:19:
> From: Karel Bos
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> 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" :
>
> > 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.den...@jefferson.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
Re: Extra client sessions
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" : > 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.den...@jefferson.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 > zfor...@vcu.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 >
Re: Extra client sessions
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 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 zfor...@vcu.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
