Re: Virtual controller load

I never knew what was happening. The sa would see a message following
backup that a device was previously damaged. His "fix" was to delete
it. Later, a service ticket would get posted. Happened earlier this
week as user worked on terminal, left for an hour and came back to a
dead session.

I had wondered what the heck was going on. Finally saw his "fix" list.

We have autovert turned off. Application software associates printers
with specific devices, so they have been manually created. We are
moving to DHCP, so (for three months) autovert could be turned on and
problem >might< go away. Most workstations use static address,
though. Then, I wonder what the i does with autovert turned on and
virtual controllers get filled. Suppose you have three virtual
controllers, and two are filled. Does autovert look at the virtual
controllers sequentially to find one with an available position?
Or,does the process post a failure message to QSYSOPR and move on?

John McKee

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I often start hacking away at
WRKCFGSTS CFGTYPE(*DEV) CFGD(*VRTDSP) OUTPUT(*)
Varying off those not at either "ACTIVE" nor "SIGNON DISPLAY" and then
deleting them.

Don't have too many virtual printers. Those that we do I am loathe to
delete for fear they might be a 'dummy' printer used by Query/400.
Displays; no big deal. They just get recreated.

But we use autovrt turned on.



Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
Group Dekko
Dept 1600
Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





From: John McKee <jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 08/08/2012 01:48 PM
Subject: Virtual controller load
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx



Does the number of devices attached to a virtual controller effect the
performance of that controller?

Does it matter if some number of virtual devices no longer exist?

Our v5r4 system has this:

QVIRCD001 251
QVIRCD002 255
QVIRCD003 251
QVIRCD004 252
QVIRCD005 252
QVIRCD006 251
QVIRCD007 242

We have two interactive subsystems. Maybe two thirds of the devices
are in one subsystem. We started having problems with the LUD list
last week after nothing for a number of years.

I have learned that 30 new devices will need to be added "soon".
Looks like a new virtual controller is in the future. Probably will
also look at the subsystem workstation entries to see if they can be
balanced better.

Thoughts?


John McKee
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.