Re: disk cache batteries

[Kirk Goins <kgoins@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have run across several machines in this state and most reported a 
marked difference in performance all of a sudden, like on a Monday 
morning. I got caught once a 170 doing a OS Upgrade. 1st CD (I_Base) 
should have took about 45min...try 2.5 hrs. The other day on a 5.1 
system I started a CUME with an IPL *no the screen sat at 1 of 68 on 1 
of x for about 25 minutes before I canceled and rescheduled after the CE 
replaced the battery. After the new battery it onlt took a little of 35 
minutes to load all the CDs.

Yup it can make a BIG difference... Your mileage may vary...

Jim Franz wrote:

> We finally got thru our fix of disk cache batteries (iSeries 810 only perhaps 4 years old).
> The only clue we had was that the system became extremely slow during a conversion test, running about 3 times slower. The CE claimed it shouldn't have hit us that hard. I think otherwise - we were running large cpylib, many chgpf's of big files, and adding 7 gig of files w/RPG to existing 10 gig.
> Manager asking if I can prove it was the batteries (this was our final test before go-live). 
> Can anyone else confirm losing cache batteries could cause such an effect?
>
> btw- our only clue of hardware problem was wrkdsksts & F11 screen showed disks in 
> "degraded" status. After an ipl, we did get following 2 msgs in qsysopr queue:
> * *Attention*  Contact your hardware service provider now.
> Message ID . . . . . . :   CPPEA12       Severity . . . . . . . :   99
> A critical system hardware problem has occurred. Critical Message Handler
>    has been run.
> Message ID . . . . . . :   CPP8988       Severity . . . . . . . :   90
>
> jim franz
>