Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Scott Barry
ge- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Scott Barry >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 10:27 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams > >Also, for consideration, might there also be "frequen

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Richards, Robert B.
o:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott Barry Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 10:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams Also, for consideration, might there also be "frequency of reference", such as security (ACF2, RACF, etc.) and/or DB2

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Scott Barry
b > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Scott Chapman >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 7:31 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams > >Remember when lo

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Pew, Curtis G
On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Richards, Robert B. wrote: > > At what point or percentage (records written/space used) would it be > advisable to split out 92s, 99s, 120s into their own logstreams? Right now > they are all in Default. A coworker tested turning on 120s in

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Richards, Robert B.
canvassing for real world experiences here. Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott Chapman Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 7:31 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams Remember

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-09 Thread Scott Chapman
Remember when looking at SMF volume, record counts are interesting, but the bigger issue is the number of bytes written. We (Peter Enrico and myself) recommend collecting at least 99 subtypes 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14. 6 is especially important as it's the summary service class period

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-08 Thread Richards, Robert B.
List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams Not sure about SMF92, but SMF99 are "WLM decision records". Yes they are large volume, bu

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-08 Thread Richards, Robert B.
iew the installation requirements. Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rob Scott Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams I have always thought of SM

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-08 Thread Allan Staller
MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams I have always thought of SMF92 and SMF99 as data of interest primarily for monitoring products - do you have them enabled because of ISV requirements? If there is ISV software that needs to read this SMF data in real

Re: SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-08 Thread Rob Scott
, 2018 3:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SMF advice on additional logstreams It was recently noticed that SMF TYPES 92 and 99 are creating a very high percentage of our overall SMF records. Seems to coincide with the implementation of z/OS 2.2, but that is speculative at the moment

SMF advice on additional logstreams

2018-02-08 Thread Richards, Robert B.
It was recently noticed that SMF TYPES 92 and 99 are creating a very high percentage of our overall SMF records. Seems to coincide with the implementation of z/OS 2.2, but that is speculative at the moment. Has anyone considered (or implemented) making one or both into their own logstream(s)?