V7R1 - latest cum, TR7, all latest groups.
AJS job - STRBKUBRM CTLGRP(SAVSYS06) SBMJOB(*CTLSBS) APPEND(*YES) OMITS(*IGNORE)
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark S Waterbury
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:51 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: System save / Tape performance issue
What do you mean by "an unattended system save" -- did you use GO BACKUP, or GO SAVE option 21, or BRMS, or what?
Also, you did not mention what version / release of OS/400 or IBM i
(i5/OS) this is happening on?
If you are on V6R1 or above, take a look at this document:
This new feature is intended to help speed up the time to save IFS objects ...
Do a google search for "ASYNCBRING(*YES)" (without quotes) and you will find a number of good articles, etc.
Hope that helps,
Mark S. Waterbury
On 1/23/2014 3:31 PM, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:
I did an unattended system save on our Pencor06 R&D partition Monday evening, the save ended abnormally because it didn’t complete within the 360 minutes.
I will be increasing the system max restricted time from 360 to 420, just in case this occurs again.
System was at 39% of 12,565 or 4900.
System was in restricted state.
Save was using 2 of 4 LTO5 drives. Normally my overall rate is 900 gb hr.
I expected the save to be done in about 5 hours.
Actual was 6+ hours, if it would have finished.
It was saving the IFS when it ended because of the time limit.
Any thoughts of where to look for issues.
IBM i Systems Administrator
Pencor Services, Inc.
462 Delaware Ave
Palmerton Pa 18071
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,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l