ibm-m...@bama.ua Subject
.edu Re: SMF LOGGER - Not Ready for
Prime Time
(office) 301.986.3574
Think big, act bold, start simple, grow fast...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Mark Zelden
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SMF LOGGER - Not Ready
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:41:48 -0700, Skip Robinson jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
wrote:
We were early adopters of SMF logger in order to prepare for a winter SHARE
session after a 1.9 ESP. At that time we used it only in the sandbox
sysplex where SMF data was throwaway. It's now running also in the
cc
Discussion List
ibm-m...@bama.ua Subject
.edu Re: SMF LOGGER - Not Ready
Mark,
Why not? Didn't you say it was only a problem a system shutdown time?
Do you care about some extra paging while you shut down?
Your question made me look up the system commands book. Yes, there is a
setsmf command that would allow me to only increase the buffer size during
shutdown!
On Sun, 10 May 2009 10:47:36 -0500, Jim Marshall jim.marsh...@opm.gov wrote:
But I think IBM
was remiss in not understanding the full ramifications of how they have sites
implement the LOGGER. If they would have talked to some savy users, then
could have made the journey much smoother.
That
We are still at 1.8, but I had intended to use this functionality as soon as we
have migrated to 1.10. We are loosing SMF data regularly during shutdown of
*one* system at a time, because of all the SMF30 termination records that
get written at DB2 and IMS shutdown. We cannot increase the SMF
On Fri, 8 May 2009 00:09:21 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
We do sysplex-wide IPLs twice a year (on fresh CDSs) as part of our DR
testing. I was just wondering how frequent 'frequent' is that it became a real
issue for the OP.
For one of our businesses we have scheduled change
On Fri, 8 May 2009 00:09:21 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
We've always done it that way. :-(
I feel with you! :-)
BUFSIZMAX is set to 512MB on both machines this occurs. We cannot go
higher, as this is already 10% of the available real storage, and there are at
least 2 DBs with
Jim,
thanks for that heads-up.
We are still at 1.8, but I had intended to use this functionality as soon as we
have migrated to 1.10. We are loosing SMF data regularly during shutdown of
*one* system at a time, because of all the SMF30 termination records that
get written at DB2 and IMS
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Barbara Nitz
[ snip ]
And may I enquire why you regularly do sysplex-wide IPLs?
We've always done it that way. :-(
-jc-
--
For IBM-MAIN
There is a zap avail somewhere on IBM link that addresses this issue by
changing the size/expansion limits on SMF Buffers for 1.8 and below.
This is avail in 1.9 (Not as a zap) as BUFSIZMAX. Check the init/tuning
guide for details.
BUFSIZEMAX has solved our issues with lost SMF data at shutdown
Small correction: the parameters BUFSIZMAX and BUFUSEWARN are available
from z/OS 1.8 on and the zap was available below 1.8.
Kees.
Staller, Allan allan.stal...@kbm1.com wrote in message
news:6cd8dd927eba514e9db1e36304be38d7117ad...@hou-mail.kbm1.loc...
There is a zap avail somewhere on IBM
And may I enquire why you regularly do sysplex-wide IPLs?
We've always done it that way. :-(
Somebody should explain to your decision makers that SYSPLEX-wide sort of
defeats the purpose of having a SYSPLEX.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:48:22 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
And may I enquire why you regularly do sysplex-wide IPLs?
We've always done it that way. :-(
Somebody should explain to your decision makers that SYSPLEX-wide sort of
defeats the purpose of having a SYSPLEX.
I would
Jim,
I have seen the same problem, BUT, only when our coupling
facilities are also shutdown as well. If the couplers
remain up, you should not experience data loss and logstream corruption.
What I see in the log after a Z EOD is issued is
IFA705I HALT SMF PROCESS HAS SYNCHRONIZED THE
We've always done it that way. :-(
I feel with you! :-)
BUFSIZMAX is set to 512MB on both machines this occurs. We cannot go
higher, as this is already 10% of the available real storage, and there are at
least 2 DBs with their own buffers set high running on each of those lpars.
I would guess
IFA705I HALT SMF PROCESS HAS SYNCHRONIZED THE BUFFERED LOGSTREAM
RECORDS.
I really like the suggestion in the books for this message sarcasm off, which
implies to use automation on a 'NOT synchronized' message, even after a z
eod. Strangely, z eod is only issued in this installation after
Jim Marshall wrote:
If anyone is in the throws of putting the SMF LOGGER into production, I would
seriously hold up and wait a while. We have been up on it for about three
months and have gone through one problem, hurdle, consequence, challenge,
etc, after another.
[ ... snipped ... ]
Some
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:09:19 -0400, Richards, Robert B.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are getting ready to turn on SMF logstream processing. I took a quick
look at the archives and haven't seen any new entries for the last six
months.
Does anyone know the current status of the date card issue
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scott Barry
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SMF Logger
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:09:19 -0400, Richards, Robert B.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are getting
31, 2008 12:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SMF Logger
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:09:19 -0400, Richards, Robert B.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are getting ready to turn on SMF logstream processing. I took a
quick
look at the archives and haven't seen any new entries for the last six
months
22 matches
Mail list logo
