I agree, and I will do that... and thanks for the info... but why does my performance and tuning manual say not to span more than 12 volumes?
-----Original Message----- From: William F. Colwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Database Specs Joe - the number of volumes isn't the problem. You need to increase the bufpoolsize in the server dsm.opt file. Here is a 'q db f=d' from my system. The bufpoolsize parameter becomes the 'buffer pool pages' value in the q db. Bill Colwell - - - tsm: NEW_ADSM_SERVER_ON_PORT_1600>q db f=d Available Space (MB): 166,860 Assigned Capacity (MB): 166,860 Maximum Extension (MB): 0 Maximum Reduction (MB): 18,640 Page Size (bytes): 4,096 Total Usable Pages: 42,716,160 Used Pages: 37,947,974 Pct Util: 88.8 Max. Pct Util: 88.8 Physical Volumes: 45 Buffer Pool Pages: 65,536 Total Buffer Requests: 194,057,057 Cache Hit Pct.: 98.44 Cache Wait Pct.: 0.00 Backup in Progress?: No Type of Backup In Progress: Incrementals Since Last Full: 5 Changed Since Last Backup (MB): 1,542.07 Percentage Changed: 1.04 Last Complete Backup Date/Time: 01/24/2002 15:49:51 - - - At 12:54 PM 1/25/2002 -0500, you wrote: >I'm running TSM v 4.1.3 on System\390. My database is 47G and spread across 25 >physical volumes (gets a 78% cache hit / not so great). > >One of my performance and tuning books recommends not spreading your database over >more than 12 physical volumes. Could anyone explain why? What kind of >performance/utilazation "hit" am I going to >incur by having my db spread across 25 volumes? > >Regards, >Joe Wholey >TGA Distributed Data Services >Merrill Lynch >Phone: 212-647-3018 >Page: 888-637-7450 >E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- Bill Colwell C. S. Draper Lab Cambridge Ma.
