Re: Temporary space

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Luis Rodriguez <luisro58@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong but couldn't (as the article states) tracking your jobs's
behaviour be a help of how much temp space your system consumes? If so,
*maybe* you could avoid running your most "expensive" (in terms of temp
space) jobs simultaneously...

Luis, it's not that we're close to capacity. There's no point trying
to rearrange "expensive" jobs. None of the jobs is very expensive,
relative to the capabilities of the system. We could easily double or
triple our normal workload, and our machine would not break a sweat.

When looking at individual jobs, nothing looks out of the ordinary.
There are no obvious runaway or hung jobs, and no *obvious* disk
leaks. Yet every week, *TMPSPACE marches upward. The longer the
system is up, the bigger *TMPSPACE becomes. It's not like it ebbs and
flows. It just goes up.

Also, on our system, the "Current unprotect used" is always very close
(within a few percent) to "Maximum unprotect". *TMPSPACE, current
unprotect, and max unprotect basically go up in lockstep.

John Y.