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 box and I used IXFP to redefine these UCBs, just for info). I had to assign these new PAV initially to a base address. 17 of these new PAVs were assigned to spare volumes - i.e., volumes that were initialized and online, but never used. After this change, I started keeping an eye on how much work WLM had in reassigning aliases. After a few weeks, these 17 PAVs still had not been removed from their initially defined base address. But there was definitely some movement of aliases during that period, i.e. WLM had taken away aliases from volumes with low IOSQ time to service those with high IOSQ time. 2 weeks ago, I reshuffled those 17 PAVs to production volumes. Now, almost all of them have been reassigned to another UCB. My question is: why does WLM take away aliases from volumes that previously had gotten a extra PAV due to high IOSQ-time (but were no longer suffering from that), while all that time, there were 17 volumes with an extra PAV, that had NO IOSQ-time at all!? BR, Kevin Somers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
