× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. July 2000

RE: AS/400 UPGRADE

You have 48 GB of installed disk arms but the first two arms are a mirrored
pair.  In other words, each disk sector on drive 1A is duplicated on drive
1B.  You cannot store different data on drive 1B (the second drive in the
set) so it only exists to provide backup for drive 1A.  If you review your
configuration list, you may notice that you have drives 1 through 12 but two
drive 1s and no drive 2.  The physical drive that would have been drive 2
has become, in my naming, drive 1B.

You don't have a separate disk IOP, you are running everything off the MFIOP
(Multi-Function Input Output Processor).  In my opinion, you need to
purchase a disk IOP to support additional disk.  The MFIOP has small CPUs on
it to support different kinds of activities.  In your case, they run a
program to support mirroring for drives 1A and 1B, they run a program to
support RAID for drives 3 through 12, they run programs to support the
optical and the tape drive.  I imagine that that MFIOP is a fairly busy guy.
For performance reasons, I suggest that you consider adding a disk IOP to
support your next group of disk drives.  In other words, I suggest that you
do not add drives to existing the MFIOP workload.  I do not know, one way or
the other, if this IOP can support more disk arms.  I took a quick look at
the IBM site and I didn't find any information about the 9142 MFIOP, it is
too old.

I haven't seen any performance data for your system so I don't know where
you are on the "in trouble" scale.  You might be fine, not in trouble at
all.  Could be that you have a problem.  I can't tell.  Performance data is
the best way to determine if a particular candidate configuration will make
it better, make it worse, or has no real effect.

You should know that in a prior life, I owned the AS/400 sizing practice for
a large software company.  I designed, developed, and supported the process
that field people used to estimate system sizes.  During the five or six
years that I owned the sizing practice, my process estimated thousands of
AS/400s with a good success rate.  In the absence of detailed facts, I tend
to be VERY conservative.  If you want to discuss more details, please review
my web site and/or contact me off-line.

Richard Jackson
mailto:richardjackson@richardjackson.net
www.richardjacksonltd.com
Voice: 1 (303) 808-8058
Fax:   1 (303) 663-4325

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of oludare
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 1:40 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: AS/400 UPGRADE


Hi Richard,

Could you, if you know, how to find out if my IOP is incapable of supporting
more than 1 RAID set.  Are you also claiming that I have 48gig of DASD on my
510?  If so, could you explain the use of the mirrored DASD.  Below you'll
find detail information on my IOP.

                          Display Storage Resources
                                                            System:   PLS
Type options, press Enter.
  7=Display resource detail   9=Display associated resources

Opt  Resource        Type  Status                Text
    CMB01          9162  Operational           Combined function IOP
       DC01          6607  Operational           Disk Storage Controller
       DC02          6607  Operational           Disk Storage Controller
       DC03          6320  Operational           Optical Controller
       DC18          6379  Operational           Tape Controller


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Jackson" <richardjackson@richardjackson.net>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: AS/400 UPGRADE


> The first two units on your system comprise a mirrored pair.
>
> The other 10 units are RAID-5 protected.  The parity data is stored on 8
> disk arms.  The arms containing parity data are the ones whose size are
> 3670.  The maximum number of arms in a single RAID set is 10, this RAID
set
> is full.  A system this old might have an IOP that is incapable of
> supporting more than one RAID set.  The minimum drives in a new RAID set
is
> four.  I hope that you have considered that.
>
> Considering the percent-used on the disk, after you add new disk units,
you
> should use DSKBAL to re-spread your objects.  Otherwise, you may
experience
> a performance issue.
>
> If you add DASD to this IOP, the IOP may become overloaded and you may
> experience a performance issue when the system is under high stress.  This
> is a complex issue, not easily described in one or two sentences.
>
> Adding memory to this system could reduce page faulting and smooth out the
> effect of the overloaded disk IOP.
>
> Richard Jackson
> mailto:richardjackson@richardjackson.net
> www.richardjacksonltd.com
> Voice: 1 (303) 808-8058
> Fax:   1 (303) 663-4325
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of oludare
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: AS/400 UPGRADE
>
>
> Guys, I am on a 510-2143 system and currently about 42Gig (see below),
this
> is only a DASD, MEMORY and OS400 upgrade.  I think I have RAID dasd system
> from your discussions.  I have included DISK configuration below for
> clarity.  Thanks all for your input.
>
>
>                      Display Disk Configuration Protection
>              Serial                  Resource
>  ASP  Unit   Number      Type Model  Name        Protection
>    1
> Mirrored
>          1   00-0BB9617  6607  030   DD001       Controller
>          1   00-0BD2365  6607  030   DD002       Controller
>          3   00-0F33908  6607  070   DD012       Device Parity
>          4   00-0F43768  6607  072   DD011       Device Parity
>          5   00-0BB8603  6607  072   DD010       Device Parity
>          6   00-0BC1727  6607  072   DD009       Device Parity
>          7   00-0BC2962  6607  072   DD008       Device Parity
>          8   00-0F37094  6607  072   DD007       Device Parity
>          9   00-0BB7222  6607  070   DD006       Device Parity
>         10   00-0F43363  6607  072   DD005       Device Parity
>         11   00-0BB9159  6607  072   DD004       Device Parity
>         12   00-0F43632  6607  072   DD003       Device Parity
>
>
>
>                      Display Disk Configuration Capacity
>                                               ----Protected--- ---Unprotec
te
> d--
>  ASP  Unit   Type Model  Threshold  Overflow       Size  %Used      Size
> %Used
>    1                                                 90%    No
> 41943 94.57%         0  0.00%
>          1   6607  030
> 4194 94.51%         0  0.00%
>          1   6607  030
> 4194 94.51%         0  0.00%
>          3   6607  070
> 4194 94.61%         0  0.00%
>          4   6607  072
> 3670 94.88%         0  0.00%
>          5   6607  072
> 3670 94.52%         0  0.00%
>          6   6607  072
> 3670 94.78%         0  0.00%
>          7   6607  072
> 3670 94.43%         0  0.00%
>          8   6607  072
> 3670 94.60%         0  0.00%
>          9   6607  070
> 4194 94.45%         0  0.00%
>         10   6607  072
> 3670 94.54%         0  0.00%
>         11   6607  072
> 3670 94.44%         0  0.00%
>         12   6607  072
> 3670 94.50%         0  0.00%
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Bipes" <chris.bipes@cross-check.com>
> To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:33 AM
> Subject: RE: AS/400 UPGRADE
>
>
> > For the hardware compatibility.  The older software may not handle the
new
> > memory or dasd.  But again it may.  You your self warn about the
> > pre-requisites.  You do have a valid point about spreading the OS across
> the
> > new drives, but then there is the new disk balancing that is available
> with
> > V4R3 and even better in V4R4.  The V4R4 version is even better than the
> > spread when loading the tapes.  Also, they are only upgrading the OS so
> the
> > data will not be touched and not spread across the new drives.
> >
> >
> >
> > Christopher K. Bipes mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com
> > Sr. Programmer/Analyst mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com
> > CrossCheck, Inc. http://www.cross-check.com
> > 6119 State Farm Drive Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102
> > Rohnert Park CA  94928   Fax: 707 586-1884
> >
> > If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, only geniuses work
here.
> > Karen Herbelin - Readers Digest 3/2000
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen, Stu [mailto:sallen@fellowes.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 3:32 AM
> > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
> > Subject: RE: AS/400 UPGRADE
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> > Out of interest, why?
> > Extra memory would make the software u/g quicker, and the extra disk
would
> > ensure that the LPP libraries would be spread over more disk arms...
> >
> > Dare, concentrate on the s/w upgrade.  As long as you meet
pre-requisites,
> > (which your hardware vendor should be able to confirm), disk, memory,
and
> no
> > protection->raid are a piece of cake.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stuart
> >
> > Stuart Allen
> > European Systems Analyst,  Fellowes
> > mailto:sallen@fellowes.com
> > +---
> > | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> > | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> > | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> > | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
> MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> > | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> > +---
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> +---
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.