× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. July 2020

Re: Disks are getting hammered ?SMPO0001?

IFS needs fast disks (better flash), mainly when deleting or writing.
When using SWA for IFS you might end up with a lot of writing for
temporary storage before save happens.

We have one box with about 14TB in one IFS directory. First used SWA
to 4*LTO5 for saving this. The box (Power7) needed about 4h for
the SWA prepare and temporary storage (WRKSYSACT) maxed
out to about 560GB...

So do not use SWA for IFS - and if you need IFS performance, forget spinning disks.

-h


Am 22.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Steinmetz, Paul via MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Are you using Save While Active for IFS?
I had issues with this years back.
IBM BRMS support determined that Save While Active does nothing for IFS saves, can actually cause them to be longer.
Reason being is there is no wait time for IFS objects, immediate.
IFS save gets the object if not locked, skips it immediately if locked.
SWA had no impact, only added overhead and time.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Follow-Ups:
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.