RE: 520 (Power5) at V6R1 Goes to Sleep

I have a client that initially reported his 520 at V6R1 was dropping

off the

network for 20-40minutes and them coming back to life like nothing

happened.

We've experienced this same issue on a V5R4 box, but never lasting more
than 10 minutes. Unfortunately this is a service bureau box and when it
happens we generally get told they have no problems in the logs, it's
working now, etc.

When we were still in-house, it never happened. Differences from how we
ran and the bureau are that they use MIMIX for replication and we had
none and they use PentaSafe for their security exit points and reporting
and we used PowerTech products.

Any chance the client is mirroring to a remote box? I believe something
is up with the mirroring, but I have no way of testing/proving that that
is the case.

coy

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kirk Goins
Sent: Wednesday, 08 December, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Midrange-L
Subject: 520 (Power5) at V6R1 Goes to Sleep

I have a client that initially reported his 520 at V6R1 was dropping off
the
network for 20-40minutes and them coming back to life like nothing
happened.
After some questioning we know that the system stops responding to pings
on
the Ethernet ports ( both on the MB) AND even the Twinax Console stops
responding. So I don't see this as a network issue. During the problem
times, the console has a sign on screen but entering a ID and password
just
results in a 'X' until everything starts working again. The system has
auto
tune on, lots of memory ( I think a full 32GB, at least 16GB ) 65
diskarms.
ALL logging appears to stop, nothing in QHST or joblogs we checked.
random
days and times. Nothing in WRKPRB, (SST - {PAL or Service Action Logs ).
I
just left a message to check the VLOGs so I don't know about them yet.

IBM is having the client install iDoctor, but other than that they
havn't
found anything yet. I 'feel' that either the box is thrashing or some
very
very low level task gets in a tight loop. Anyone else seen this before?
Anthing Thoughts?

Thanks