RE: Disks are getting hammered ?SMPO0001?

["Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

I found this doc from an old PMR.

And also, but not well documented, the below settings do not apply to IFS.
"For each library"

Save active wait time:                             
   Object locks  . . . . . . . . . . . . 120       
   Pending record changes  . . . . . . . 120       
   Other pending changes . . . . . . . . 120       

How Save-While-Active on IFS (SAV) Works - IBM

https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/how-save-while-active-ifs-sav-works

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 8:47 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Disks are getting hammered ?SMPO0001?

The IBM page
(https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/brms-parallel-parallel-versus-multiple-library-parallel-concurrent-saves)
still seems a little unclear.  This is the phrase that I wonder about:

"In cases when saving large amounts of small data, parallel support is not the ideal choice and may negatively impact save performance."

What is large amounts of small data? Millions of PDF documents in an RJS directory?


On 7/23/2020 6:23 AM, Rob Berendt wrote:
> The results are in
>
> With SWA:
> Job 388968/ROB/BRMBKUP submitted for job schedule entry BRMBKUP number 000020.  (23:30:00)
> Job 388968/ROB/BRMBKUP completed normally on 07/22/20 at 00:47:32.
>
> Without SWA:
> Job 389248/ROB/BRMBKUP submitted for job schedule entry BRMBKUP number 000020.  (23:30:00)
> Job 389248/ROB/BRMBKUP completed normally on 07/23/20 at 00:28:36.
>
> Rob Berendt