This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DC25.0A4C2E70
Content-Type: text/plain
Resending: I got a bounce on this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donaldson, Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:51 PM
To: 'larry.kingery AT veritas DOT com'
Cc: Veritasbu" <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>"@localhost.localdomain
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Reprioritizing queued jobs
Your explanation describes the exact situation that I just posted back to
the list.
Now, about multiple storage units... one of my early spectacular problems
was not having all drives of equal density in my STU, like the book said
(SAG: p24-top).
Drives with the same density must be in the same storage unit. For example,
if a
robot has two drives of the same density, add only a single storage unit for
the
robot.
In my case, I have 4 DTL7000 drives. Your suggestion is to divide up these
four drives into two STU's, say 3-drives & 1 drive.
I can't assign specific drive ID's to a STU so am I safe to assume that NB
won't get confused? Do I have to fake it with the DLT & DLT2 as drive
types?
How can I do this?
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Kingery [ mailto:larry.kingery AT veritas DOT com
<mailto:larry.kingery AT veritas DOT com> ]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:12 PM
To: Donaldson, Mark
Cc: Veritasbu"
<veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>"@localhost.localdomain
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Reprioritizing queued jobs
Note that priority is not the first parameter used when determining
which job to run next. If you're using multiplexing (which I think we
all know), jobs which are eligible to run using a tape that's already
mounted run before ones with a higher priority which would require
another tape.
An example. We have one drive with mpx level of two. No
ALLOW_MULTIPLE_RETENTIONS_PER_MEDIA
Job State Retention Priority
--- ----- --------- --------
A Queued 1 week 0
B Queued 2 weeks 92
C Active 1 week anything
D Active 1 week anything
Now, let's say job D finishes. A new fragment will be started and C
and A will run together. Since A could be started RIGHT NOW, it won
over the higher priority job B (which needed to use a different tape
due to retention level being different).
To answer your original question, no you can't change the scheduling
order. Set up a stu with no more than N-M drives and send all the
"other" jobs to it, where N is the number of actual drives and M is
the number you want to reserve for the DB.
Donaldson, Mark writes:
> I thought that was only for resolving priority when the jobs start at
> the same scheduled time - however, with your note I dove again into the
> SAG and it doesn't seem that way.
>
> I'll bump the priority up and see what happens.
>
> -Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey Hazel [ mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com <mailto:geoffh AT
> us.ibm DOT com>
> < mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com <mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com> > ]
>
> You must have a class defined for these user backups. What about setting
>
> the class priority up to 99 or something higher than the other classes?
>
> ---------------|
>
> I use User Backups & User Archives (bpbackup & bparchive) to manage hot
> DB
> backups & archived redo logs. When the DB sends a set of files, I want
> NB
> to jump right on it - regardless of queued jobs ahead of it.
>
> Is there any way of reprioritizing jobs that are queued? (I'm willing
> to
> let active jobs complete first)
>
> -Mark
>
--
Larry Kingery
Free the mallocs
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DC25.0A4C2E70
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=155230622-04042002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Resending: I got a bounce on this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Donaldson, Mark
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:51 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
'larry.kingery AT veritas DOT com'<BR><B>Cc:</B> Veritasbu"
<veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT
edu>"@localhost.localdomain<BR><B>Subject:</B>
RE: [Veritas-bu] Reprioritizing queued jobs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Your explanation describes the exact situation that I just
posted back to the list. <BR><BR>Now, about multiple storage units...
one
of my early spectacular problems was not having all drives of equal density
in
my STU, like the book said (SAG: p24-top).</FONT></P><FONT size=2>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><BR>Drives with the same density must be in the same storage unit. For
example, if a<BR>robot has two drives of the same density, add only a
single
storage unit for the<BR>robot.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><BR>In my case, I have 4 DTL7000 drives. Your suggestion is to
divide
up these four drives into two STU's, say 3-drives & 1 drive.<BR><BR>I
can't assign specific drive ID's to a STU so am I safe to assume that NB
won't
get confused? Do I have to fake it with the DLT & DLT2 as drive
types?</P>
<P>How can I do this?</P>
<P>-Mark<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Larry Kingery [<A
href="mailto:larry.kingery AT veritas DOT com">mailto:larry.kingery AT
veritas DOT com</A>]<BR>Sent:
Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:12 PM<BR>To: Donaldson, Mark<BR>Cc:
Veritasbu"<BR><veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT
edu>"@localhost.localdomain<BR>Subject:
RE: [Veritas-bu] Reprioritizing queued jobs<BR><BR><BR>Note that priority is
not the first parameter used when determining<BR>which job to run next.
If you're using multiplexing (which I think we<BR>all know), jobs which are
eligible to run using a tape that's already<BR>mounted run before ones with a
higher priority which would require<BR>another tape.<BR><BR>An example.
We have one drive with mpx level of two.
No<BR>ALLOW_MULTIPLE_RETENTIONS_PER_MEDIA<BR><BR>Job
State
Retention
Priority<BR>---
-----
---------
--------<BR>A
Queued 1 week
0<BR>B
Queued 2
weeks
92<BR>C
Active 1 week
anything<BR>D
Active 1 week
anything<BR><BR>Now, let's say job
D finishes. A new fragment will be started and C<BR>and A will run
together. Since A could be started RIGHT NOW, it won<BR>over the higher
priority job B (which needed to use a different tape<BR>due to retention
level
being different).<BR><BR><BR>To answer your original question, no you can't
change the scheduling<BR>order. Set up a stu with no more than N-M
drives and send all the<BR>"other" jobs to it, where N is the number of
actual
drives and M is<BR>the number you want to reserve for the
DB.<BR><BR><BR>Donaldson, Mark writes:<BR>> I thought that was only for
resolving priority when the jobs start at<BR>> the same scheduled time -
however, with your note I dove again into the<BR>> SAG and it doesn't seem
that way.<BR>><BR>> I'll bump the priority up and see what
happens.<BR>><BR>> -Mark<BR>><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Geoffrey Hazel [ <A
href="mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com">mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT
com</A><BR>> <<A
href="mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com">mailto:geoffh AT us.ibm DOT
com</A>>
]<BR>><BR>> You must have a class defined for these user backups. What
about setting<BR>><BR>> the class priority up to 99 or something higher
than the other classes?<BR>><BR>> ---------------|<BR>><BR>> I
use
User Backups & User Archives (bpbackup & bparchive) to manage
hot<BR>> DB<BR>> backups & archived redo logs. When the DB
sends a set of files, I want<BR>> NB<BR>> to jump right on it -
regardless of queued jobs ahead of it.<BR>><BR>> Is there any way of
reprioritizing jobs that are queued? (I'm willing<BR>> to<BR>>
let
active jobs complete first)<BR>><BR>> -Mark<BR>><BR><BR>--<BR>Larry
Kingery<BR>
Free the
mallocs<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DC25.0A4C2E70--
|