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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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)?
11 matches
Mail list logo