Re: Why my system WAS so sluggish! CORRECTION

>

Sorry, slight correction

> 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 NO 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
> >