<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Phantom locks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:45:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: rayj1031</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78690</link>
		<dc:creator>rayj1031</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you consider what iTera is doing (watching every object on the system and capturing every change that occurs) an unexpected lock on an object seems very reasonable now that you know what the problem is. :-)

iTera is just doing what it does knows how to do,  watching everything on the system, kind like a phantom, looking (and apparently locking) things as he stealths around checking for changed objects.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you consider what iTera is doing (watching every object on the system and capturing every change that occurs) an unexpected lock on an object seems very reasonable now that you know what the problem is. <img src='http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>iTera is just doing what it does knows how to do,  watching everything on the system, kind like a phantom, looking (and apparently locking) things as he stealths around checking for changed objects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: splat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78687</link>
		<dc:creator>splat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom, no need for a sweetener.  I&#039;d left out something important.

After talking to iTera, I pulled the library out of the replication.  I added code following the save to tape to push the objects to the backup machine using an iTera command for objects not being replicated.  For the first time in more than a month, the backup ran without a hitch.

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions - there are some I still plan to investigate now that I&#039;ve got the main problem taken care of.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom, no need for a sweetener.  I&#8217;d left out something important.</p>
<p>After talking to iTera, I pulled the library out of the replication.  I added code following the save to tape to push the objects to the backup machine using an iTera command for objects not being replicated.  For the first time in more than a month, the backup ran without a hitch.</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone for their suggestions &#8211; there are some I still plan to investigate now that I&#8217;ve got the main problem taken care of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomliotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78659</link>
		<dc:creator>tomliotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:41:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I should have added a &#039;smiley&#039; to my previous comment. Experience with issues from a lot of customer sites makes me perhaps over-sensitive to HA environments. There&#039;s nothing &lt;i&gt;wrong&lt;/i&gt; with them; they just tend to expose odd bits of the system that few of us experience under normal circumstances.

Unexpected/unexplained locks seem to top the list.

The vendors almost always seem plenty knowledgeable on recovery or avoidance or whatever is needed.

Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should have added a &#8216;smiley&#8217; to my previous comment. Experience with issues from a lot of customer sites makes me perhaps over-sensitive to HA environments. There&#8217;s nothing <i>wrong</i> with them; they just tend to expose odd bits of the system that few of us experience under normal circumstances.</p>
<p>Unexpected/unexplained locks seem to top the list.</p>
<p>The vendors almost always seem plenty knowledgeable on recovery or avoidance or whatever is needed.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: splat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78649</link>
		<dc:creator>splat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom, you&#039;re right, I should have made note of it.

I didn&#039;t mention it because I couldn&#039;t see how it was related in any way; I&#039;ve been able to trace its effects elsewhere, so I assumed (mistakenly) that as I couldn&#039;t see any interaction there was none.

I&#039;ve been in touch with iTera &amp; will be trying a different approach to the backups.

BTW, iTera didn&#039;t have an explanation for why WRKOBJLCK didn&#039;t show anything.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom, you&#8217;re right, I should have made note of it.</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t mention it because I couldn&#8217;t see how it was related in any way; I&#8217;ve been able to trace its effects elsewhere, so I assumed (mistakenly) that as I couldn&#8217;t see any interaction there was none.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been in touch with iTera &amp; will be trying a different approach to the backups.</p>
<p>BTW, iTera didn&#8217;t have an explanation for why WRKOBJLCK didn&#8217;t show anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomliotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78605</link>
		<dc:creator>tomliotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;...HA software.&lt;/i&gt;

This is a HA environment? Well, in that case, that&#039;s the first place to check. for future reference, that&#039;s an element that should be mentioned in the beginning for many (unexpected/unexplained) lock-related issues.

Vendor contact is the best step.

Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8230;HA software.</i></p>
<p>This is a HA environment? Well, in that case, that&#8217;s the first place to check. for future reference, that&#8217;s an element that should be mentioned in the beginning for many (unexpected/unexplained) lock-related issues.</p>
<p>Vendor contact is the best step.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: splat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78573</link>
		<dc:creator>splat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Abigail, I tried the save to tape with SAVACT(*SYNCLIB).  Unfortunately it didn&#039;t make any difference - the program still fell over with the CPF3761.

IBM claims the problem lies with the iTera HA software.  I&#039;ve given Vision the information and am waiting to hear back.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Abigail, I tried the save to tape with SAVACT(*SYNCLIB).  Unfortunately it didn&#8217;t make any difference &#8211; the program still fell over with the CPF3761.</p>
<p>IBM claims the problem lies with the iTera HA software.  I&#8217;ve given Vision the information and am waiting to hear back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: abigail</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78368</link>
		<dc:creator>abigail</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Try:   ===&gt; SAVLIB LIB(SAVELIBS) DEV(TAP01) ENDOPT(*LEAVE) SAVACT(*SYNCLIB) SAVACTWAIT(10) SAVACTMSGQ(QSYSOPR)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try:   ===&gt; SAVLIB LIB(SAVELIBS) DEV(TAP01) ENDOPT(*LEAVE) SAVACT(*SYNCLIB) SAVACTWAIT(10) SAVACTMSGQ(QSYSOPR)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rayj1031</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78249</link>
		<dc:creator>rayj1031</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would be interested in the resolution , however after loosing that much blood on the wall from beating my head against it, I would at least consider  virtual tape.  

Start by saving one library to one virtual tape cartridge.  Then copy the virtual tape image to a real tape cartridge using the DUPTAP command.  Then delete your test library then restore the test library from tape.

Once you have done that exercise you will understand and trust virtual tape.

I realize that this may seem like a significant change, but try virtual tape with a single TEST library then analyze how much work it would be to change your current backup process.   It might surprise you.  It might surprise me. ??  

Another advantage is that virtual tape images can be FTP&#039;s to another server for archival.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be interested in the resolution , however after loosing that much blood on the wall from beating my head against it, I would at least consider  virtual tape.  </p>
<p>Start by saving one library to one virtual tape cartridge.  Then copy the virtual tape image to a real tape cartridge using the DUPTAP command.  Then delete your test library then restore the test library from tape.</p>
<p>Once you have done that exercise you will understand and trust virtual tape.</p>
<p>I realize that this may seem like a significant change, but try virtual tape with a single TEST library then analyze how much work it would be to change your current backup process.   It might surprise you.  It might surprise me. ??  </p>
<p>Another advantage is that virtual tape images can be FTP&#8217;s to another server for archival.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: splat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78180</link>
		<dc:creator>splat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78180</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Update.

IPLed the system on Sunday, with a RCLSTG tossed in for good measure - no problems with the RCLSTG or the system save.

Checked the job log for the nightly backup on Monday; the problem persists.  Contacted IBM &amp; sent the job log, program dump, etc. for them to look over.

To ensure I had a backup of the file library in question, I added code to create a second save file (EC#FILE_1) and save the file library a second time.  I figured this way I could be reasonably confident that I had something to fall back on if things hit the fan.

Looking over the job log this morning, it wasn&#039;t surprising to see the familiar &lt;b&gt;CPF3761&lt;/b&gt; message.  What was surprising was to see that it now read &lt;b&gt;Cannot use FILE &lt;i&gt;EC#FILE_1&lt;/i&gt; in SAVELIBS.&lt;/b&gt;

Sent the job log, program dump, etc. so IBM can puzzle over this development.

Peter, thanks for posting the DMPSYSOBJ command; having it here has saved me some scrounging.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update.</p>
<p>IPLed the system on Sunday, with a RCLSTG tossed in for good measure &#8211; no problems with the RCLSTG or the system save.</p>
<p>Checked the job log for the nightly backup on Monday; the problem persists.  Contacted IBM &amp; sent the job log, program dump, etc. for them to look over.</p>
<p>To ensure I had a backup of the file library in question, I added code to create a second save file (EC#FILE_1) and save the file library a second time.  I figured this way I could be reasonably confident that I had something to fall back on if things hit the fan.</p>
<p>Looking over the job log this morning, it wasn&#8217;t surprising to see the familiar <b>CPF3761</b> message.  What was surprising was to see that it now read <b>Cannot use FILE <i>EC#FILE_1</i> in SAVELIBS.</b></p>
<p>Sent the job log, program dump, etc. so IBM can puzzle over this development.</p>
<p>Peter, thanks for posting the DMPSYSOBJ command; having it here has saved me some scrounging.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: splat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/phantom-locks/#comment-78057</link>
		<dc:creator>splat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-78057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Managed to leave &#039;IBM&#039; off of the end of that first sentence.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Managed to leave &#8216;IBM&#8217; off of the end of that first sentence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 3/10 queries in 0.037 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 397/403 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-06-18 21:51:45 -->