Hello,
I've noticed a strange dss behavior and want ask explanation:
After I finished dss backup, I always received a message similar to this:
15.29.56 JOB31114 IEC205I ODD,BKDS,BACKUP,FILESEQ=1, COMPLETE VOLUME LIST,
870
870 DSN=BKUP.D003,VOLS=PT0541,TOTALBLOCKS=12122
Is the
Victor, IEC205I gets the TOTALBLOCKS from system control blocks. It should
match what rmm records (gets it from same place.. Actually it depends on
access method and whether that method maintains the block count fields. EXCP
does not and the application must maintain it.
The block count is
From: Ron Hawkins ronjhawk...@sbcglobal.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 05/13/2014 09:15 AM
Subject:Re: Performance for DFDSS with ORACLE Tape Drives VSM5 (
was Change tape block size)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Victor
On May 14, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
Prior to 3480's with IDRC the physical block size on tape corresponded
to the block size sent across the channel by MVS and the maximum tape
data transfer rate was invariably bounded by the physical tape drive
speed and the relation
On 05/14/2014 07:03 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
Prior to 3480's with IDRC the physical block size on tape corresponded
to the block size sent across the channel by MVS and the maximum tape
data transfer rate was invariably bounded by the physical tape
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Performance for DFDSS with ORACLE Tape Drives
VSM5 ( was Change tape block size)
Victor,
The blksize is not the only way
-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
From: Ron Hawkins ronjhawk...@sbcglobal.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 05/13/2014 09:15 AM
Subject:Re: Performance for DFDSS with ORACLE Tape Drives VSM5 (
was Change tape block size)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe
: Ron Hawkins ronjhawk...@sbcglobal.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 05/13/2014 09:15 AM
Subject:Re: Performance for DFDSS with ORACLE Tape Drives
VSM5 (
was Change tape block size)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-
m...@listserv.ua.edu
Victor,
If I
Hello,
First I need thank you who replied to my question.
I should introduce my problem's background and my concern.
The tape is virutal tape of oralce, vsm5.
I am backing up extended format PS dataset to VSM5 using ADRDSSU.
I tested using dss to backup, no matter what block size I specified in
W dniu 2014-05-12 08:44, Victor Zhang pisze:
Hello,
First I need thank you who replied to my question.
I should introduce my problem's background and my concern.
The tape is virutal tape of oralce, vsm5.
I am backing up extended format PS dataset to VSM5 using ADRDSSU.
I tested using dss to
If block size specified in JCL is max block size the program can use when
writing to tape, then I think I can' chage the block dize dss use to write to
tape dsn. From GTF trace, someone helped me find dss was using 56062 as the
block size to write, however when read, from SMF , we found dss use
Lizette,
Can I use ibm tools(BADBLKSZ) to check my tape dsn block size using EREP
history file?
regards
Victor
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Victor Zhang
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Change tape block size
Lizette,
Can I use ibm tools(BADBLKSZ) to check my tape dsn block size using EREP
history file?
regards
Victor
to for more visibility
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Victor Zhang
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Change tape block size
Hello,
First I need thank you who replied
It is my recollection that, pretty much since the advent of buffered tape
drives (e.g. 3590, 9840,... ) the actual blocksize written to tape is
independent
of what is specified in the JCL.
In other words, it does not matter what you code in JCL, the actual data block
written to physical tape
W dniu 2014-05-12 21:02, Staller, Allan pisze:
It is my recollection that, pretty much since the advent of buffered tape
drives (e.g. 3590, 9840,... ) the actual blocksize written to tape is
independent
of what is specified in the JCL.
In other words, it does not matter what you code in JCL,
Agreed. Low compression ratios will produce more blocks to actually be
written to the tape, elongating total application time.
snip
W dniu 2014-05-12 21:02, Staller, Allan pisze:
It is my recollection that, pretty much since the advent of buffered
tape drives (e.g. 3590, 9840,... ) the
: Monday, May 12, 2014 2:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Performance for DFDSS with ORACLE Tape Drives VSM5 ( was Change
tape block size)
Agreed. Low compression ratios will produce more blocks to actually be
written to the tape, elongating total application time.
snip
W dniu 2014-05
W dniu 2014-05-12 21:16, Pommier, Rex pisze:
So what gets sent down the channel? If I put BLKSIZE=1024 on my JCL for the output DD
statement of the DFDSS dump job, will DFDSS dutifully send 1K blocks down the channel to
the tape controller/drive and the hardware builds big blocks and writes
W dniu 2014-05-12 21:12, Staller, Allan pisze:
Agreed. Low compression ratios will produce more blocks to actually be
written to the tape, elongating total application time.
High compression is not good also. BTDT. The optimal compression is the
one assumed by the vendor, usually 3:1 *IBM) or
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Change tape block size
Lizette,
Here it is:
For PS dataset:
DUMP -
OUTDDNAME(ODD) -
DATASET(INCLUDE(TEST.DATA)) -
TOL(ENQF) SPHERE
For SMS compact extended format dataset:
DUMP -
OUTDDNAME(ODD
Victor, You still haven't provided details of what the 'tape drive' really
is.
Virtual or a real drive - and then which virtual system/physical drive type and
media type - It can make a big difference
Mike
--
For IBM-MAIN
I just tested backup from both SMS compact dataset and non-sms normal PS
dataset to tape.
The data are same, the normal PS dataset was created by ICEGENER.
I got speed of about 39.24MB/s from normal PS dataset to tape, but 21MB/s from
compact dataset.
By using DAF, I got :
21 VOL=AB0539
W dniu 2014-05-06 09:38, Victor Zhang pisze:
I just tested backup from both SMS compact dataset and non-sms normal PS
dataset to tape.
The data are same, the normal PS dataset was created by ICEGENER.
I got speed of about 39.24MB/s from normal PS dataset to tape, but 21MB/s from
compact
In RMM, I checked the block size = 262144, which is 256KB in size.
And if we can't trust it, and does dss program record block size in SMF 21
record?
Or Is there another method to check tape block size, ie using DITTO?
Regards
Victor
W dniu 2014-05-06 10:28, Victor Zhang pisze:
In RMM, I checked the block size = 262144, which is 256KB in size.
And if we can't trust it, and does dss program record block size in SMF 21
record?
Or Is there another method to check tape block size, ie using DITTO?
1. Why don't you trust RMM ?
Hello experts,
First thank you for your kind reply and patience.
On same system, when I backup PS dataset to tape, dss will use roughly 256KB
block size, however, when backing up SMS compacted extended format dataset(DB2
image copy),dss will use around 56KB block size, is it normal?Can I change
Please post your DFDSS control cards.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Victor Zhang
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Change tape block size
Hello experts
Radoslaw,
Thank you very much.
Your method of showing dsn block size is very good.
I got:
ICE802I 0 BLOCKSET TECHNIQUE IN CONTROL
ICE905I 0 I : RF=192,LR=0,BLK=229376,BCT=26
Regards
Victor
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Lizette,
Here it is:
For PS dataset:
DUMP -
OUTDDNAME(ODD) -
DATASET(INCLUDE(TEST.DATA)) -
TOL(ENQF) SPHERE
. DFDSS did what it felt was correct.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Victor Zhang
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Change tape block size
Lizette,
Here
Hello experts,
I use DAT format SMF reocrd, but have difficulty understanding its meaning, can
you explain:
021 VOL=M01621 CA=081E DEVTYPE=3490 SIO=3238 BR=1 BW=3197120 LST=199846
LBS=65536
021 VOL=M10992 CA=0B3F DEVTYPE=3490 SIO=56633 BLS=28672 BR=1 BW=3515420
LST=56633
I want to
/storage/tapetool/
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Victor Zhang
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Change tape block size
Hello all,
Is there a way to centrally
Victor Zhang wrote:
Hello experts,
I use DAT format SMF reocrd, but have difficulty understanding its meaning, can
you explain:
021 VOL=M01621 CA=081E DEVTYPE=3490 SIO=3238 BR=1 BW=3197120 LST=199846
LBS=65536
021 VOL=M10992 CA=0B3F DEVTYPE=3490 SIO=56633 BLS=28672 BR=1 BW=3515420
If without SAS, can I format SMF 21 to get block size written to tape?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
) which process SMF
data. DAF is one that is frequently recommended.
:: -Original Message-
:: From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
:: Behalf Of Victor Zhang
:: Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 6:47 PM
:: To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:: Subject: Re: Change tape
36 matches
Mail list logo
