On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:06:54 -0500, Dave Butts wrote:
>It was an OS problem after all, and not due to the MCLs.
>APAR OA29370 has been opened.
>
>We have been over the 65535 device boundry for a long time, but the bug
>became exposed when I deleted over 5000 addresses the week before via
>dynamic
Per IOCDS.
Many of our addresses are open systems dasd (for FDR backup purposes).
Dave
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:53:32 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
wrote:
>>
>
>Just out of curiosity: 65535 devices per what? IOCDS, storage device?
>Makes me feel working in a small shop...
>
>Kees.
>**
"Dave Butts" wrote in message
news:...
> It was an OS problem after all, and not due to the MCLs.
> APAR OA29370 has been opened.
>
> We have been over the 65535 device boundry for a long time, but the
bug
> became exposed when I deleted over 5000 addresses the week before via
> dynamic iogen
Just curious: why a POR?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Dave Butts
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Dynamic PAV assigment has stopped
It was an OS problem after all, and not
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Butts"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic PAV assigment has stopped
It was an OS problem after all, and not due to the MCLs.
APAR OA29370 has been opened.
We have been over the 65
It was an OS problem after all, and not due to the MCLs.
APAR OA29370 has been opened.
We have been over the 65535 device boundry for a long time, but the bug
became exposed when I deleted over 5000 addresses the week before via
dynamic iogen activate. The PAV assignment code broke because of t
We have HyperPAV implemented on one test box. It is actually working fine.
Only the WLM dynamic PAV is not working (on the rest of the dasd farm).
Still working with IBM support. They are a little stumped so far, but have
been able to find that the root problem is that the DBVT (Device Block
Good!
All I said was: "check it out"!
Never said it was the issue.
>Yea, we checked the IODF and the WLM policy. >No changes there.
>Last IODF change was earlier in April and everything is still set for PAV in
>there and in
the WLM policy.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
-
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Dynamic PAV assigment has stopped
Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our
alias assignments for the past couple weeks. Lickily our PAVs are
currently spread
t of your excellent advise.
>
>I guess I wasn't clear.
>I find it difficult to believe that not a single PAV was re-assigned in a
>month.
>That was the purpose of my 'pattern' statement.
>
>That's why I said eliminate the possibility of the WLM policy or the
the purpose of my 'pattern' statement.
That's why I said eliminate the possibility of the WLM policy or the IODF
changing with regard to dynamic PAV.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / s
e 04, 2009 2:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Dynamic PAV assigment has stopped
>Indeed, and that may be exactly what happened: a change to the workload
>eliminated or reduced volume contention such that PAV redistribution is no
>longer needed.
I didn't say a change t
>Indeed, and that may be exactly what happened: a change to the workload
>eliminated or reduced volume contention such that PAV redistribution is no
>longer needed.
I didn't say a change to the workload.
I said a change to WLM or IODF.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Dynamic PAV assigment has stopped
>More important is your IOSQ time increasing ? >Are the number of PAV ad
>More important is your IOSQ time increasing ? >Are the number of PAV adresses
>insufficient ?
The OP said he was fine, for now.
But, I/O patterns do change, over the day, and over time.
I still think the IODF and the WLM policy should be checked to see if it's
enabled in both.
It may be; it
LS,
More important is your IOSQ time increasing ? Are the number of PAV adresses
insufficient ?
2009/6/4 Dave Butts
> Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
>
> RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our alias
> assignmen
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:16:52 -0500, Dave Butts wrote:
>Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
>
>RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our alias
>assignments for the past couple weeks. Lickily our PAVs are currently sprea
In a message dated 6/4/2009 10:02:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
kees.vern...@klm.com writes:
When was your MCL upgrade?
Our last upgrade was first half of April and I still see PAVs moving.
>>
Parts is parts. Guess we need to know more info.
z9---z/CHPIDs---z/Controller
MCL
Type and
The MCLs were applied on May 2.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:47:59 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
wrote:
>>
>
>When was your MCL upgrade?
>Our last upgrade was first half of April and I still see PAVs moving.
>
>Kees.
--
For IBM-MAIN
>Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
Check both your IODF & WLM policy.
Both have to have PAV turned on.
If one doesn't, then it won't be active.
We implemented dynamic, aeons ago, in the following manner:
1. Assign one alias to each volume (we had e
"Dave Butts" wrote in message
news:...
> Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
>
> RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our
alias
> assignments for the past couple weeks. Lickily our PAVs are current
Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our alias
assignments for the past couple weeks. Lickily our PAVs are currently spread
out enough over the production UCBs that we have not had terrible
p
Hi Kevin,
WLM is indeed a complex beast. I will not pretend to be able to completely
answer all of your questions here, as there are a number of variables involved,
but I will attempt to provide some insight.
Firstly, there are two algorithms that WLM uses to decide on the assignment
of Dynam
Ted,
The first six words of the 2nd paragraph of my 1st response to James on this
thread:
" I agree with the IBM presenter."
The first six quoted words of your response to me:
">I agree with the IBM presenter."
Is there another way to say it?
Ron
>Fine. You've now stated tha
> I think that's why God invented the archives.
For some reason, I'm not seeing Ron's posts in the archives,
not in Google Groups version of bit.listserv.ibm-main anyway.
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:51:02 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perform
>I think that's why God invented the archives. Check the archives for what
>each of you two said. Copy and paste exact quotes of one another. Then
>apologize to each other, or else continue to carry on your feud, PRIVATELY.
Maybe I didn't read the answer correctly, but there's nothing defi
In a message dated 11/5/2008 11:36:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Since, I didn't keep any of this thread, I am going by memory.
I think that's why God invented the archives. Check the archives for what
each of you two said. Copy and paste exact quotes of on
>Yes it did, Ted. And you quoted it in your first reply to Ron.
This is the last I'm going to say on this.
But, Tom show me where that is, and I'll appologise.
The response I read stated that one of three types of PAV's was needed.
Nowhere, do I recall any statement on hyper PAVs in the response.
>Ted, sometimes I think your posts are a little too picky. Unfortuneatly, Ron
>always responds to your posts as in this thread.
To the list:
I'm sorry.
To Ron:
I neither accepted, nor rejected, your opinion regarding HYPER PAV's, since you
didn't express one in your original response.
You onl
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:33:38 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>
>>Your original response was a timeline, not an answer.
>
>My resonse was intended to state that hyper PAVs were not needed. Since it
wasn't a problem when -27's first came out, why is it a problem now?
That's not a logical response. HyperPA
This exchange reminds me of some of the exchanges we used to have in the past
between people I won't mention (Partly because I forgot their names). Some of
the exchanges got heated. I know when I get comments I don't like, instead of
firing off a nasty reply (Ted - this wasn't nasty - I'm not
>Don't bust my gonads Ted!
I'm not busting anything.
You didn't answer the question.
>Your original response was a timeline, not an answer.
My resonse was intended to state that hyper PAVs were not needed. Since it
wasn't a problem when -27's first came out, why is it a problem now?
>Why do yo
ion.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:04 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Performance Question - Dynamic PAV
>
> &
>Thx Ted. How does that information change my answer?
You said some sort ogf PAV.
The OP was asking about *HYPER* PAV.
You did not answer his question.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / arc
rformance Question - Dynamic PAV
>
> >I agree with the IBM presenter. Cache will not make a difference
> unless something changes the hit ratio. You really need one of the
> three varieties of PAV if you are going to fold volumes at this ratio
> in an unplanned
> manner.
>
>
>I agree with the IBM presenter. Cache will not make a difference unless
>something changes the hit ratio. You really need one of the three varieties of
>PAV if you are going to fold volumes at this ratio in an unplanned
manner.
Ron, the point is not whether you need PAV or not.
The IBM'r stated
age-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of james smith
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:43 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Performance Question - Dynamic PAV
>
> we have a customer panicking because an IBM pr
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Performance Question - Dynamic PAV
we have a customer panicking because an IBM presenter 'suggested' that you
should not use Mod-27 devices for critical data UNLESS you have hyper PAV
installed as you are likel
>we have a customer panicking because an IBM presenter 'suggested' that you
>should not use Mod-27 devices for critical data UNLESS you have hyper PAV
>installed as you are likely to see problems with IOSQ times.
So called Mod-27's came out before HYPERPAV did.
Using them with cache and 'normal'
we have a customer panicking because an IBM presenter 'suggested' that you
should not use Mod-27 devices for critical data UNLESS you have hyper PAV
installed as you are likely to see problems with IOSQ times. Not sure about
the validity of the comments so I thought I would seek out opinions on th
Hello,
All volumes are defined the same way, WLMPAV=YES.
Furthermore, some of these spare volumes were production volumes before we
started moving to model27. And at that time, they 'took part' in the dynamic
PAV process.
Vriendelijke Groeten / Best Regards / Med Vänliga Hälsnin
Hi Kevin,
Are your spare volumes defined with WLMPAV=YES in your I/O config? Or, is it
possible to disable dynamic alias management for certain volumes directly in
the STK box?
--
Zaromil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
Hi,
first post!
I've noticed an odd behavior in how WLM selects the aliases being moved from
one UCB to another to decrease IOSQ time.
A few months ago, we converted a number of base addresses to aliases while
converting/migrating some storage-pools from model9 to model27. (we run on
an STK b
In a message dated 9/9/2007 8:34:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I think the discussion may be accidentally creating confusion about OE and
channel limitations at a single device level. The number of OE on a channel
is the sum of all IO on the channel no matter how
Bill
>
> Based on everything I have read lately, I now believe it is possible to
> start 256 I/O requests from one LPAR to the
> same device before the first one ends if that device is in an ESS LCU
> with
> four FICON channels between that
> LCU and the LPAR that does the I/Os, if that LPAR has
In a message dated 9/7/2007 10:03:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I suggest browsing Pat Artis' website for some quality education on FICON.
I am doing that now and browsing the general Internet, too. I have learned
a lot over the years from Pat Artis.
Based
Ted
>
> But, in general, I think the law of diminishing returns kicks in at
> around 6-8.
>
Maybe true when PG are only using 4-8 spindles, but with wide striping and
large volumes a poor cache hit workloads would get a lot of benefit from 32
spindles concurrently handling IO for a volume.
Bill,
>
> I confess to ignorance of FICON details and of the acronym OE.
>
OE is short for Open Exchanges. This refers to the number of Initiator =>
Target relationships supported by the Host Channel and the Storage Port. If
volume has 4xFICON channels and 256 Alias then technically there is no
>I have not been able to find any statement about whether WLM will put any
>limit on the number of aliases that can be assigned to a particular device
>when using Dynamic PAVs.
IIRC, it's 256, but I have seen other vendors limit in the hardware (EMC).
The highest I have ever seen is 50.
And, th
In a message dated 9/7/2007 11:47:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>This is not quite right. FICON is restricted by the either the number of OE
supported by the channel, or the OE supported by the Storage port. On a z9
there can be 64 OE on every channel on an LCU -
M Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Dynamic PAV Device Limit?
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/7/2007 7:59:47 A
On our IBM SHARKS F2105's and 8100's; we have 48 PAV's defined to each LCU.
I have seen as many as 47 PAVs defined to 1 logical device.
Water is put where ever the FIRE IS with Dynamic PAV's.
The restriction is the number you have GEN'ed to the LCU.
I do not think other DASD Vendors do this.
I know
In a message dated 9/7/2007 7:59:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I have not been able to find any statement about whether WLM will put
any limit on the number of aliases that can be assigned to a
particular device when using Dynamic PAVs. Does anyone on the l
.
I have not been able to find any statement about whether WLM will put
any limit on the number of aliases that can be assigned to a
particular device when using Dynamic PAVs. Does anyone on the list
know of a limit? Can anyone point me to a manual that would document
whether
cc
Discussion List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU> Dynamic PAV
I have not been able to find any statement about whether WLM will put
any limit on the number of aliases that can be assigned to a
particular device when using Dynamic PAVs. Does anyone on the list
know of a limit? Can anyone point me to a manual that would document
whether this can occur
>ONLY the aliases have wlmpav set to yes. The base volumes were set to NO.
OOPS!
Of course, the fact that IBM always insists that you specify options in more
than one place, and if you have a mix up, not only does it not tell you, rather
it behaves in the worst possible manner, would have noth
We have the I/O Priority Management set to Yes. I believe I've found
the
answer. In reviewing our device definitions in HCD, I noticed ONLY the
aliases have wlmpav set to yes. The base volumes were set to NO.
Thanks.
"Bob Rutledge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Dennis,
I know for us Dynamic PAV just did not work unless we had both "I/O
priority management" & "Dynamic alias management" set to YES in WLM.
Service Coefficient/Service Definition Options
Command ===>
_
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Where is the switch to turn I/O Priority Management on ?
IIRC on the same screen as where you define the SDC's for CPU, SRB, MSO & IOC.
Silly me. I was looking for it on HMC...
Thank you both Ted and Zaromil
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
<- snip ->
>Where is the switch to turn I/O Priority Management on ?
IIRC on the same screen as where you define the SDC's for CPU, SRB, MSO &
IOC.
<- snip ->
In WLM,
Option 8. Service Coefficients/Options
Panel "Service Coefficient/Service Definition Options":
.
.
.
Enter
>Where is the switch to turn I/O Priority Management on ?
IIRC on the same screen as where you define the SDC's for CPU, SRB, MSO & IOC.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in!
--
For IBM-
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
What am I missing to allow dynamic management of
pav's?
Do you have I/O Priority Management turned on?
It seems basic, but without it two things happen:
1. Execution Velocity is calculated with only CPU values.
2. PAV is not dynamic.
Where is the switch to turn I/O Pri
<- snip ->
In the initial setup we defined in HCD base (3390B) and alias
(3390A) volumes with wlmpav=yes (for the aliases).
<- snip ->
Do you have WLMPAV=YES for the base volumes, too?
Zaromil
--
For IBM-MAIN
>The point is that someone observing the storage array's behavior, like Dennis,
should see aliases move regardless of the setting.
But, what is required is something addressing goals.
And, the OP was seeing nothing.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in!
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
This means that WLM will make alias moves that minimize overall IOS queueing,
but these moves will not take service class goals into consideration.
TOMAY-TOE
TOMAW-TOE
That is a difference that makes no difference.
And, a difference that makes no difference is no differenc
>This means that WLM will make alias moves that minimize overall IOS queueing,
>but these moves will not take service class goals into consideration.
TOMAY-TOE
TOMAW-TOE
That is a difference that makes no difference.
And, a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
If I'm not addres
>So I think WLM is doing its thing, just not immediately.
The PAV assignment is not immediate.
I decide to (de-)allocate one, I don't do it until the next interval.
I then don't look at that volume for 3 intervals.
These are WLM intervals -- 10 seconds (clock) each.
2 years ago, I had a problem
Actually, 2. is incorrect. From the z/OS 1.7 WLM Planning book:
"IMPORTANT: If you enable dynamic alias management, you must also enable I/O
priority management. So you need to specify yes for both of these
options on the panel. If I/O priority management is set to no, you will get only
the ef
I don't have PAV on my 9980V but I just looked at the HSP 600 we installed on
Sunday. I've also got it set to 192 bases and 64 aliases in each control unit.
What I see is that when the box is "at rest", only the first 64 bases have an
alias assigned. I dragged out my test program that repeate
>What am I missing to allow dynamic management of
pav's?
Do you have I/O Priority Management turned on?
It seems basic, but without it two things happen:
1. Execution Velocity is calculated with only CPU values.
2. PAV is not dynamic.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal pa
We recently migrated all our mainframe data to a new Hitachi storage array
(9990v). In the initial setup we defined in HCD base (3390B) and alias
(3390A) volumes with wlmpav=yes (for the aliases). On the storage array we
have "Compatible PAV" enabled.In WLM we have Dynamic alias management
72 matches
Mail list logo
