Re: Why my system WAS so sluggish!

[Philipp Rusch <Philipp.Rusch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had problems at different customers when the battery pack of the RAID
controller's cache-RAM was at its end of life. There was an SRC in the
problem log, but no text giving any hint that it could be the cache controller
or the battery on it. At the first occasion of this (like you noticed a super
slow motion system and obvious hw-errors and no "abusing" pgms), I called
IBM and they sent a real guru to us: he saw the log and said. "Ok. I know
this, I'm going back to the car to get a battery pack for the controller."
This was a model 170 with a 2740 RAID-controller running V4R3 (last year)
and I don't know if the second level text of that SST message has been improved.
The same problem happend to another customer short time after, but
that time I already knew ...  ;-)  (model 720 with a 2748 controller).

Regards from germany, Philipp Rusch

Rick Rayburn schrieb:

> Thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts and information to this
> thread. The 400 community is a great "nation" of people and, as we all know,
> the 400 is a damn good box to make a living with...now if we can only
> convince IBM!
>
> The reason for my sluggishness turned out to be a bad battery attached to
> one of the I/O cards. There was a message logged in QHST informing of a
> damaged I/O card but alas, it was only 2 lines and no more! So if you
> scrolled past it as I initially did...Too bad that message is not repeated
> as happens when an ASP threshhold percentage is being challenged. Boy, did
> it slow us down and it appears as if there was absolutely ZERO reflection of
> this within the software tools IBM has provided us. Still, I wouldn't trade
> in my career on the 400 for any other box and with all of the talented
> people in our user group, nothing can escape us for too long!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Rick Rayburn
>