Oh - and make sure you FORMAT the entire volume or that it's already
formatted when you do the allocation -- otherwise, you'll get paging errors
and likely abend.

(That would be CPFMTXA 9F88   - answer FORMAT - answer 0 END - give it label
- after format - answer PAGE 1 END - followed by END for the allocation.)

Scott Rohling

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Scott Rohling <[email protected]>wrote:

> It appears that you didn't allocate any cylinders VM6PG2 as page space.
> Not sure how safe it is to detach that volume - or if a DRAIN will even work
> ..   For now - you may want to sacrifice another volume (VM6PG3) - allocate
> it correctly (PAGE 1 END) -- do the DEF CPOWN SLOT x VM6PG3..    Then you
> can relabel things later so PG2 is being used and has page space.
>
> Scott Rohling
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Daniel Tate <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>                EXTENT     EXTENT  TOTAL  PAGES   HIGH    %
>>
>> VOLID  RDEV      START        END  PAGES IN USE   PAGE USED
>>
>> ------ ---- ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ----
>>
>> VM6PG1 9F86          1      10016  1761K  1175K  1761K  66%
>>
>> VM6PG2 9F87          0          0    180    180    180 100%
>>
>>                                  ------ ------        ----
>>
>> SUMMARY                            1761K  1175K         66%
>>
>> USABLE                             1761K  1175K         66%
>>
>> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > (I use MAINT too much......)
>> >
>> > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to
>> be
>> > causing the problem, although still possible.  The next time the problem
>> > occurs, do the
>> > CP IND
>> > and check for an Eligible list.  If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then
>> try
>> > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested  (300% 300%
>> 300%).
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Tate" <[email protected]
>> >
>> > To: <[email protected]>
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
>> >
>> >
>> > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc".
>> >
>> > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to
>> > set this up might have.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little
>> >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable
>> >> about
>> >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list
>> to
>> >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be
>> configured
>> >> to handle.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Jones" <
>> [email protected]>
>> >> To: <[email protected]>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting
>> >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300.
>> >>>
>> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I
>> suspect
>> >>>> you applied the
>> >>>> SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200%
>> >>>> prior to doing the
>> >>>> Q SRM
>> >>>>
>> >>>> With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the
>> >>>> problem?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like?
>> >>>> The output of
>> >>>> CP Q ALLOC PAGE
>> >>>> will provide the information
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mike
>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Tate" <
>> [email protected]>
>> >>>> To: <[email protected]>
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Output of Q SRM
>> >>>>
>> >>>> q srm
>> >>>> IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2
>> >>>> LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60%
>> >>>> STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200%
>> >>>> DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767
>> >>>> DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS
>> >>>> MAXWSS : LIMIT=9999%
>> >>>> ...... : PAGES=999999
>> >>>> XSTORE : 0%
>> >>>> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones <[email protected]
>> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi, Daniel.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command
>> (HELP
>> >>>>> CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the
>> FORCE
>> >>>>> command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is
>> done
>> >>>>> from either MAINT or OPERATOR.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm
>> afraid.
>> >>>>> As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My
>> >>>>> first
>> >>>>> guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never
>> >>>>> given
>> >>>>> an opportunity to run.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the
>> services
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> a good z/VM performance monitor.....IBM offers the Performance
>> Monitor
>> >>>>> (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and
>> >>>>> Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very
>> good
>> >>>>> suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a
>> >>>>> modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good
>> performance
>> >>>>> monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a
>> >>>>>> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will
>> not
>> >>>>>> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not
>> >>>>>> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD
>> >>>>>> shows no appreciable load.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Two questions from this:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this
>> >>>>>> possible?
>> >>>>>> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3%
>> utilization
>> >>>>>> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Dave Jones
>> >>>>> V/Soft Software
>> >>>>> www.vsoft-software.com
>> >>>>> Houston, TX
>> >>>>> 281.578.7544
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Dave Jones
>> >>> V/Soft Software
>> >>> www.vsoft-software.com
>> >>> Houston, TX
>> >>> 281.578.7544
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to