RE: FTP Issue

Someone may have installed a trial of a 3rd party exit point vendor software
on your machine.  Best bet is to ask around or look around on your Dev box
for new libraries.

You can also look at the following exits in WRKREGINF and see if anything is
registerd.

QIBM_QTMF_SERVER_REQ  VLRQ0100     *YES     FTP Server Request Validation
QIBM_QTMF_SVR_LOGON   TCPL0100     *YES     FTP Server Logon             
QIBM_QTMF_SVR_LOGON   TCPL0200     *YES     FTP Server Logon             
QIBM_QTMF_SVR_LOGON   TCPL0300     *YES     FTP Server Logon             

Matt Graybiel
NetIQ Corporation
 
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:41 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1430

Send MIDRANGE-L mailing list submissions to
        midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
        midrange-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of MIDRANGE-L digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: Problem with SQL peformance-depends on field in Where
      Clause! (Walden H. Leverich)
   2. NFS export and Tivoli Storage Manager (wdjohnston@xxxxxxxxxxx)
   3. RE: Create View (Marco Facchinetti)
   4. Re: NFS export and Tivoli Storage Manager (rob@xxxxxxxxx)
   5. Re: NFS export and Tivoli Storage Manager (rob@xxxxxxxxx)
   6. Re: error message when uploading (as400tech@xxxxxxxxxxx)
   7. FTP Issue (Smith, Mike)
   8. RE: error message when uploading (Dwayne Allison)
   9. Re: error message when uploading (David Gibbs)
  10. Re: FTP Issue (rob@xxxxxxxxx)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

message: 1
date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:25:07 -0400
from: "Walden H. Leverich" <WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Problem with SQL peformance-depends on field in Where
        Clause!

>Norio10l is a logical file with PIPPO as one of the keys. 

"one of the keys", or the FIRST key? If PIPPO is a secondary key, the
logical isn't going to do you much good. Given your timings I'd say that
in both cases you're missing an index you could use. With a simple sql
like that, if there is an index on the single field you're using in the
where clause you should get subsecond response time, always! If you're
not, something's wrong w/the indicies.

Walden's General Rule of SQL: Simple selects are _always_ subsecond! A
14-way join w/"LIKE" processing and non-optimal indicies take longer.

-Walden

------------
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x11
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)



------------------------------

message: 2
date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:30:01 -0400
from: <wdjohnston@xxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: NFS export and Tivoli Storage Manager

I'm hoping someone else has been through this. 

We are running TSM on a Linux box.  We have an NFS mount from our i5 running
V5R3 that TSM uses to archive files.  It was working ok except for two
issue.

This first is that TSM cannot create a volume on the NFS mount greater than
1Gb.  While annoying, we can work with this, but we'd like to know why.  IBM
says that the IFS should allow the files to be bigger and that it has to be
an application problem.  I'm not a Linux expert, so I don't know what to
look at here.

The second problem is more critical.  Suddenly, last week, TSM stopped being
able to use new volumes.  It can create them, but when it tries to vary them
on it produces the message ANR7805E volume in use by another server.  This
only happens with new volumes, the old ones created earlier are still online
and being used correctly.  I haven't put any new PTF's on lately, and
issuing a RLSIFSLCK on the new file doesn't help.  I looked at the security
on the files and it is exactly the same as the other files.


My last question is, Does anyone use TSM running on the i5?  How well does
this work, and are there any pitfalls to watch out for?

Thanks as always
Wayne Johnston
Ripon Medical Center


------------------------------

message: 3
date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 07:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
from: Marco Facchinetti <facchinetti@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Create View

In my SQL ignorance I made LF = VIEW...

And I WAS thinking VIEWs as a more efficient way to access data instead of
DDS.

I can now choose between:

UDTF, LF or Trigger.

Creating 200 LF over a single phisical is something I never done and I don't
know if there is a
performance issue.

UDTF, nice approach since I have a single object for multiple data
libraries.

Trigger, 200 phisical files to write/update/delete

I think trigger is the light one.

Thanks
Marco

--- Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A further consideration - you mentioned the performance issue in reply to 
> the post about UDTFs - but views are also run at the time you use them - 
> the SQL SELECT that is used to define the view is run dynamically, so 
> performance is an issue there, as well. Whereas the LF access path is 
> maintained and can even include an index.
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> Vern
> 



                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


------------------------------

message: 4
date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:53:09 -0500
from: rob@xxxxxxxxx
subject: Re: NFS export and Tivoli Storage Manager

We are using TSM on the i5.  But it's a dead end road.  TSM is a great 
product, it's just that IBM is dropping i5/os as a platform for it.  The 
last version supported on i5/os only runs under PASE.  We have TSM 5.2.4 
but I really think they stopped supporting TSM 5.2.2 on i5/OS.  If you 
want to go past 5.2.2 on the i5 IBM suggests that you load it on a Linux 
or AIX partition.  But, if you want to shell out the bucks for the right 
package deal with a new i5 TSM is part of that package deal - go figure.
Sad, but more of our disk space is used up by TSM and Domino on our i5/570 
than all of our BPCS, Unicorn/HRO, etc databases combined.  Heck ERP, 
accounting and OS combined only suck up about 9% of our disk space. Really 
bites that IBM is pushing other os's instead of i5/OS.

Another problem with TSM under PASE is that PASE really cripples the 
performance of TSM.  Under native i5/os operations we get 3-4 times the 
speed of tape operations that we do under TSM under PASE.  IBM says that 
the PASE tape api's are the performance bottle neck.

Rob Berendt