RE: Loading TR9 on V7R1 - Performance Issues!

Agreed. When you are doing Cumes, and Groups the recommendation is to apply delayed. The TR almost enforces this as it applies the marker PTF perm.

Pete

--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
http://www.iInTheCloud.com





-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steinmetz, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:27 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx)'
Subject: RE: Loading TR9 on V7R1 - Performance Issues!

I had a similar issue years back when executing Option 8 ."Install program temporary fix package"
I set the option for immediate PTFs to be applied, set delayed to be applied at IPL.
IBM concluded that the PTF related to HTTP caused all HTTP jobs to be recycled.
IBM also stated that a large amount of PTFs should not be applied immediately.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Graap, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Loading TR9 on V7R1 - Performance Issues!

Something VERY odd happened on my system yesterday.

I believe it may have had something to do with loading the latest group PTF's (Not applying them, just loading and marking for the next IPL)

I used SNDPTFORD to order PTF groups:

SNDPTFORD PTFID((SF99711 *ONLYPRD *ONLYRLS)) DELIVERY(*ANY)

The PTF were delivered and I used GO PTF Option 8 ."Install program temporary fix package" to stage these PTF's to be applied during the next IPL.

Nothing any different than what I do every month.

However, curiously within 15 minutes of doing this, system performance fell apart! Not gradually either, it hit us like hurricane.

Interactive response times went from sub second to 30, 40, 50 even 90 seconds per transaction.

Further investigation indicated that "seize waits" on the system went through the roof too!

It took an IPL (which ended up applying TR9) to resolve this performance nightmare. Everything seems to have returned to normal since then.

I'm just trying to figure out what happened now.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Kenneth
Kenneth E. Graap
NW Natural
System Administrator for IBM Power Systems
503.226.4211 x5537
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kennethgraap



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.