Richard Sims wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:57 PM, David Bronder wrote: > > > ... However, the > > automated migrations seem to not be very sensitive to the LOWMIG value > > (I've been moving it closer to HIGHMIG but the migrations still keep > > on running). ... > > David - > > See "Migration" in the TSM Concepts redbook, and "LOwmig" > in http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts .
Richard, Steve, Yeah, I'm aware of how migration works. :) I'm pretty sure none of my nodes are consuming 40% or so of any one of my disk pools most nights, though. That said, it's also a subjective observation, and with multiple migration processes running that impression would be further enhanced (thus my lament about the lack of a MIGPROCESS override). It certainly could be that the times I notice it happen to be the times where the top 3-4 consumers of the pool do in fact consume 40%+ of the pool. On the other hand, I did notice in TSM 5.3 that a different threshold, copy pool reclamation I think, became _more_ sensitive to the value. Where previous versions would continue the reclamation processing to conclusion even if the threshold changed, TSM 5.3 cancels the process almost immediately. -- Hello World. David Bronder - Systems Admin Segmentation Fault ITS-SPA, Univ. of Iowa Core dumped, disk trashed, quota filled, soda warm. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
