Increasingly lengthy SAVSYS times

15 pts.
Tags:
iSeries data center
SAVSECDTA
SAVSYS
Our time required for SAVSYS is growing, and we have not had much success with IBM on getting answers on why and how to fix. We orginally thought the bulk of the time was with the SAVSECDTA, and then discovered user profiles owning large numbers of objects - most being scanned images. However, the private authority on these objects is not large, so...? If it is the SAVSECDTA portion that is slowing us down, what can we do? IBM is saying we should clean up the profiles in question that are unusually large, but how do you do that since someone hsa to own the objects? Is anyone else having a problem with growing SAVSYS time as a result of the number of objects growing? Would distributing the ownership of objects between other profiles shorten the amount of time our SAVSECDTA takes? If so, can you do that by selecting a group of objects to change their owners rather than doing them all at once or one at a time? Any suggestions would be appreciated!
ASKED: January 4, 2008  9:17 PM
UPDATED: March 8, 2010  3:15 AM

Answer Wiki

Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.

I assume you have analysed the content of the SAVSYS data? and minimised it?

Then run some DSPOBJD reports to files, and query them by owner ID.

You should have some figurative profiles on the system – QPGMR is a favourite, and maybe QUSER.

Set up individual profiles to be members of the appropriate group profile – so all users are members of group QUSER.

From your reports, identify objects which are owned by ‘wrong’ profiles. Use CHGOBJOWN to change the owner to become one of your group profiles.

a simple loop around a dspobjd output file – or a query output from the dspobjd will alter lots at a time.

===========================================================

<i>We orginally thought the bulk of the time was with the SAVSECDTA, and then discovered user profiles owning large numbers of objects – most being scanned images. However, the private authority on these objects is not large, so…?</i>

It’s not clear what you mean by “not large”. Does that mean that none of the individual objects have a lot of authorities assigned to them or that only a relatively small number of objects have a lot of authorized users?

Why do individual objects have authorities at all? Put the authorities on the directories rather than the objects; if the directory can’t be accessed, the objects are secured. Authorize the directories only to a few group profiles rather than to individuals. Remove the private authorities and use primary group authorities instead.

There are various ways to reduce the number of authorities depending on what needs to be worked on.

Tom

Discuss This Question:  

 
There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when members answer or reply to this question.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

To follow this tag...

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Thanks! We'll email you when relevant content is added and updated.

Following