This all looks healthy – to me. It’s a single point in time, of course.

Cheers, Martin

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of 
Peter <dbajava...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2023 at 04:42
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SQA overflow condition
Hello

Right now the picture of CSA is good with just 9 percent used but I can see
ESQA is in overflowing condition

Area              Start     End        Size(K)    %Use    Overflow
Size(Mb)

Extended Private  1B100000  7FFFFFFF  1653760K
1615Mb

Extended CSA      08B8E000  1B0FFFFF   300488K      49
293Mb

Extended MLPA     --------  --------
0K

Extended FLPA     08B8B000  08B8DFFF
12K

Extended PLPA     034B6000  08B8AFFF    88916K
87Mb

Extended SQA      01DBD000  034B5FFF    23524K      97       1572K
23Mb

Extended R/W Nuc  01D6F000  01DBCFFF
312K

Extended R/O Nuc  01000000  01D6E4FF    13753K
            13Mb

R/O Nuc           00FDD000  00FFFFFF
140K

R/W Nuc           00FD4000  00FDCAB7
34K

SQA               00E00000  00FD3FFF     1872K      29          0K
2Mb

PLPA              00C3D000  00DFFFFF     1804K
2Mb

FLPA              00C3C000  00C3CFFF
4K

MLPA              --------  --------
0K

CSA               00A00000  00C3BFFF     2288K       9
2Mb

Private           00006000  009FFFFF    10216K
10Mb

V=R               00006000  00015FFF
64K

System            00002000  00005FFF
16K

PSA               00000000  00001FFF
8K



Home Address Space                      Length      Used
Free

Region Requested
2000000K

Region Above 16M                      1653760K     4400K
1649360K

Region Below 16M                        10216K     1364K
8852K



DIAGxx
Option

CSA Tracking        Active


SQA Tracking
Active

GFS Trace         Inactive


On Sun, Nov 26, 2023, 9:35 PM Paul Feller <prjfeller1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter, I've also have taken the attitude that SQA or ESQA overflow is not
> necessarily a bad thing as long as you are not running short of CSA or
> ECSA.  As Martin mentioned you don't want to run out of CSA/ECSA.
>
> There are a few things that I've done over the years.
>
> There is a set of IRA messages that you could look for in the SYSLOG to
> get an idea of the data/time of when the overflow happens.  There is also
> an IRA message that indicates when the overflow is relieved.
>
> Another thing I looked at was who was using up the SQA/ESQA.  Did
> something "new" show up that is allocating SQA/ESQA.  As a side note I
> would look at what the new thing might also be doing to the CSA/ECSA.
>
> As Martin mentioned the SMF type 78 record can be helpful.  I had some SAS
> code I ran that looked at the SMF type 78 records to get a picture of the
> ups and downs of SQA/ESQA and CSA/ECSA usage.  I'm not very good at coding
> SAS but I'm able to make things work.  I got the original code off the CBT
> website and modified it for my needs.  Unfortunately, I don't have access
> to the z/OS system anymore because I'm retired so I don't have any
> additional details I can give you around the SAS code.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf
> Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2023 2:39 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: SQA overflow condition
>
> (This is not specific advice but a way of thinking about things.)
>
> SQA can, of course, overflow into CSA - with no real harm done. Unless it
> causes CSA to go short. (CSA can't overflow into SQA, of course.)
>
> The above statements are true for both 24-bit and 31-bit.
>
> 1409K below the line, though, is pretty extreme - for 24 bit. If you made
> SQA larger so that it only overflowed, say, by 100K there would be no
> wasted virtual storage.
>
> More importantly, check out the "free CSA" picture. You really don't want
> to run out of that. For 24-bit you want a few hundred K free. (But to
> achieve that might require losing 1MB of 24-bit private, which might not be
> consequence free.)
>
> For 31 bit I like to see at least 100MB free ECSA, preferably more. The
> reason is because ECSA is - in my experience - more volatile.
>
> Speaking of volatility, you need to plan defensively - as a problem can
> lead to surge in SQA and CSA usage .
>
> Final point: I would advocate using SMF 78-2 to build a picture of common
> storage usage - and how variable it is. Here is a blog post I wrote on the
> matter:
>
> htt ps://
> mainframeperformancetopics.com/2020/01/05/how-i-look-at-virtual-storage
>
> (Take out the space to follow the URL - as my mail client turned it into
> an attachment.) 😕
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 26 Nov 2023, at 05:40, Peter <dbajava...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > I am able to see the below alert condition under RMF postprocessor III
> >
> >
> >
> > Name Reason Critical val. Possible cause or action
> >
> > *STOR TSQAO > 0 1409K bytes SQA overflow into CSA 1409K.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Our SQA and CSA set up in our IEASYSxx is as below
> >
> >
> >
> > CSA=(2000,300000)
> >
> >
> >
> > SQA=(16,192)
> >
> >
> > Hardware: z14
> > LPAR : 16gb memory
> > zOS 2.4
> >
> > Do I have think about tunning the SQA parameter ?
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> Unless otherwise stated above:
>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited
> Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO
> Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to