We do have a whole DASD defined in "SYSTEM CONFIG" as:
CP_Owned Slot 5 VMDUMP DUMP
that's on our: z/VM Version 5 Release 1.0, service level 0501 (64-bit)
Each night after running VM:Spool to backup out SDFs and dump files, we programmatically issue:
'CP QUERY DUMP'
'CP SET DUMP OFF'
'CP SET DUMP DASD'
it replied last night:
DASD 0923 dump unit CP IPL pages 51805
No dump unit - Dump function is SET OFF
DASD 0923 dump unit CP IPL pages 51032
So, SPXTAPE is still leaving extra SPOOL pages allocated when it ends at z/VM 5.1 (even with dedicated DUMP space), but that is easily accommodated by the set of those 3 commands.
But that said, the SPXTAPE DUMP issue reported is different than the issue reported, which describes additional pages allocated when LOADing SDFs. Still, it certainly would not hurt to try the command sequence after a LOAD, as well. Hans, let us know the results of your PMR, please.
Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
| "Schmiedge, Ronald"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions" <[email protected]> 03/06/2006 10:27 AM
|
|
We find on our z/VM 4.4 system there are a lot of spool pages used when
we do our daily spool offloads. We opened an ETR with IBM and found out
that SPXTAPE is doing this, and it is working as designed.
Do you have DUMP set to DASD? Do you have a SPOOL volume dedicated to
DUMP?
If DUMP is set to DASD, you could try this:
Q DUMP
Q ALLOC SPOOL
Do some of your SPXTAPE loads
Q DUMP again
SET DUMP OFF
SET DUMP DASD
Q ALLOC SPOOL
IBM suggested two things to us - set aside dedicated DUMP space (since
SPXTAPE seems to be using the DUMP file for "working storage") or set
DUMP OFF and back to DASD after each SPXTAPE.
Ron Schmiedge
CGI Group Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hans Rempel
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 5:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Problem moving spool files from z/vm 3.1 to z/vm 5.2 using
spxtape
Thanks Mike. I read you e-mail earlier but didn't have a chance to
reply.
You're correct. I used a spxtape to backup of nss files from 5.2 system
and found that it used much more space than necessary about 13% when I
loaded them the 5.2 syste. I than IPL'ld and it dropped to 3%. So its
not just between releases. SPXTAPE 5.2 is bad.
Your comments made me comfortable to proceed with the spxtape load. I
just added an additional 3 spool volumes to the 4 I had.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammock
Sent: March 5, 2006 6:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Problem moving spool files from z/vm 3.1 to z/vm 5.2 using
spxtape
I can't help much, but may be able to 'reinforce' your experience.
I was helping a customer install one of our systems and migrate their
4.4
system to it and change to 5.2. When we loaded the SPXTAPE spool files
they seemed to occupy 2 to 3 times as much space as they had on the 4.4
system. We had to add a new spool volume to be able to load them all.
But, when we re-IPL'ed, the 'missing space' reappeared and the correct
amount of spool space/cylinders was allocated.
It looks like there may be some kind of SPXTAPE problem on 5.2 Mike C.
M. (Mike) Hammock Sr. Technical Support zFrame & IBM zSeries Solutions
(404) 643-3258
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Janice Calder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mber.ca>
To
Sent by: VM/ESA [email protected]
and z/VM
cc
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
.UARK.EDU> Problem moving spool files from
z/vm 3.1 to z/vm 5.2 using
spxtape
03/05/2006 02:23
PM
Please respond to
VM/ESA and z/VM
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.UARK.EDU>
When loading spool files using spxtape we appear to be
using up a lot of spool pages that are not identified or associated with
regular spool entries but are flagged as in use. VMspool identifies them
as "Other" in the sysuse screen.
I tried loading by userid only, issuing Q ALLOC SPOOL command
frequently and the number of spool pages loaded was about 1/3 the number
being used up.
The spxtape dump on 3.1 dumped approx 11,000 files using about 800,000
pages which looks fine. The loading appears to be the problem.
Problem has been report to IBM but this problem does not appear in their
database. More help from them tomorrow but I like to get a work around
today.
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks
Hans Rempel / Janice Calder
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
