The TSM 6.3 reorganization server option default values are appropriate most (but not all) of the time. In this environment the default values are not optimal and you should continue to use the current values for the reorganization server options.
Thank you, Del ---------------------------------------------------- "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 04/26/2016 06:55:50 AM: > From: Krzysztof Przygoda <przy...@gmail.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 04/26/2016 06:56 AM > Subject: Re: Manual db2 online reorg for ver.6.3 > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > Thank you Del for clarification. > Now its getting strange after: > "With Spectrum Protect server version 6.3, IBM does not recommend online index > reorganization on > BF_AGGREGATED_BITFILES,BF_BITFILE_EXTENTS,BACKUP_OBJECTS,ARCHIVE_OBJECTS" > as I did it with success (and significant reduce of db and increase of > overall performance) on several such servers. > Could you elaborate more on why is such recommendation now? Previously I > thought that those tables are disabled by default to make people aware of > enabling them. > Kind regards > Krzysztof > > > 2016-04-25 17:09 GMT+02:00 Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com>: > > > In > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21683633#online_index > > IBM was trying to discuss the improvements that have been made to the on > > line index reorganization initiated by the Spectrum Protect server. It was > > not IBM's intention to recommend that the above DB2 commands be executed > > outside of the Spectrum Protect server. Except for some exceptional case > > on line reorganization should only be initiated by the Spectrum Protect > > server. > > > > For Spectrum Protect server version 6.3, IBM recommends upgrading to at > > least version 6.3.5.000 which will allow the use of this server option > > DISABLEREORGINDEX > > the default value for DISABLEREORGINDEX is > > BF_AGGREGATED_BITFILES,BF_BITFILE_EXTENTS,BACKUP_OBJECTS,ARCHIVE_OBJECTS > > > > With Spectrum Protect server version 6.3, IBM does not recommend on line > > index reorganization on > > BF_AGGREGATED_BITFILES,BF_BITFILE_EXTENTS,BACKUP_OBJECTS,ARCHIVE_OBJECTS > > > > > > IBM will clarify the information and update the technote. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Del > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 04/25/2016 > > 06:34:58 AM: > > > > > From: Krzysztof Przygoda <przy...@gmail.com> > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Date: 04/25/2016 06:35 AM > > > Subject: Re: Manual db2 online reorg for ver.6.3 > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > > > Anyone from IBM? > > > Recently we raised PMR with such but support seems just to quote the > > same > > > docs... > > > Kind regards > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-22 10:11 GMT+02:00 Krzysztof Przygoda <przy...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > Just wondering if anyone tried with TSM ver 6.3 method described in > > > > document related to ver 7.1 > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21683633 > > > > > > > > "*Online index reorganization* > > > > > > > > You can initiate online index reorganization by running a command with > > the > > > > following syntax: > > > > db2 reorg indexes all for table <table name> allow write access > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > db2 reorg indexes all for table BF_AGGREGATED_BITFILES allow write > > access > > > > > > > > " > > > > > > > > as that part is missing in previous document version: > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21452146 > > > > > > > > Seems to be pure db2 thing and would be nice to be able to use > > such...when > > > > we don't want to start it as automatic. > > > > Question is if TSM doing something more when initiating that for its > > own > > > > or if such manual run on db2 is anyhow harmful to tsm? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > > > > >
