Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5R3 performance issue?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Abramowitz
    replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    It may take considerably more time than three days for commands to unpack. Have you reorganized your files? For clarity, please spell out words in their entirety. I had difficulty reading your post. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    We recently upgraded from V5R2 to V5R3 (on an 890), and have noticed that our nightly batch process has been extended by as much as 25%. IBM indicated that this might have been caused by a PTF that was installed because of the type of disk that we have. Has anyone else noticed any performance issues with V5R3, and if so what caused it, and what was the remedy if any? POS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    Dear David , Thx for ur comments but the system is slow from last 3 days.. and IBM people have said that now conversion is voer.. how to chk when conversionw as started and when it was over from the qhst log.. or somewhere else. thx YT

    Leave a comment:


  • David Abramowitz
    replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    I wrote an article on this phenomenon a while back. I hope the basics still apply: David Abramowitz "TechTip: Poor Performance After Upgrade?" 7/24/03 12:28pm Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    HI ALL, We are experiencing very poor performance after upgrade to V5R3 from V5R2... any clue will be very helpful asap. thx YT

    Leave a comment:


  • dsternberg@chartercom.com
    replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    Just to clarify after speaking with IBM support, MF35132 is a V5R2 PTF. A corrective PTF for defective MF35133 is in the works and should be released as a HIPER but a ETA was not available. Visit this PSP link for updated info and search for MF35133. http://www-912.ibm.com/s_dir/sline00...2?OpenDocument

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    V5R3 performance issue?

    Martin, thanks for the reply. Since I posted this topic, IBM have found what they believe the problem to be - PTF's MF35132 and MF35133 are defective. Anyone experiencing performance issues with V5R3 should check if they have these PTF's installed and check with IBM on how to correct. POS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest started a topic V5R3 performance issue?

    V5R3 performance issue?

    We upgraded from v4r2 (!!!) to v5r3 during the first week of July of this year. I had heard some rumors that performance was an issue with some folks after the upgrade, but had a 2nd test system that it was running on (of exact same configuration) & it did seem to take a little longer with our nightly jobs, but nothing dramatic. We have about 100 batch jobs that run each night & although a few of them seem to run a lot longer, 25 minutes as opposed to 15 minutes, there as of yet hasn't been anything that really negatively impacts overall processing. Online response time, which I was mainly worried about, didn't seem to be affected, at least not enough that I noticed or any of my users have felt compelled to complain about so far, and they are not shy about complaining . Our hardware is relatively old too, a 170 with 210 CPW batch & 29 CPW interactive. We had 5 8.5 gig 6713 disks in the system at the time of the upgrade, all of them in a parity set (IBM's term for RAID-5, I believe). The upgrade itself took up 16% of the available DASD coming from v4r2 so 2 weeks ago I installed 5 17.5 gig 6718 drives & added them to the system ASP in their own parity set. Performance-wise, these extra disks didn't have any noticable ill effects either. Total usable disk space is now 104 gig. One thing I did notice was that the IPL took a LOT longer to complete. Same amount of time for the initial sign-on screen to appear on the console, about 15 minutes, but the system was just THRASHING for another 45 minutes with response time being pretty bad. I noticed that there was a job taking up a lot of the CPU % during this time & IBM advised me that it was for clustering. Since we don't have a cluster of AS400's, I removed this job's prestart or autostart job entry from the QSYSWRK subsystem description & now IPLs finish like they used to pretty much. It made a big difference anyway. I forget the job's name but I remember it had CST embedded in it. If your not using clustering, maybe you could call IBM & get them to help you remove this job from the autostart list. HTH, Martin
Working...
X