You would think that you could do that, but I found that it didn't seem to work
as we thought it did in that regard.
Bottom line : test this thoroughly before using it in production.
Rick
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Rheault <guilla...@dcshq.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:54:36
To: <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE
You can also set this setting at the form level.
So this would seem the best solution: enable a higher number for certain forms
only, like the BaseElement form.
________________________________
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Rick Cook
Sent: Wed 02/11/09 10:39 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE
**I spent some time playing with this some months ago. It turns out that the
recommended setting of 10 is as large as the value should be, unless you are
having outside processes creating large numbers of records virtually
simultaneously. Standard workflow like a Push Fields create wasn't enough to
warrant the setting. Setting the value larger than 10 actually slightly
degraded system performance.
So set it to 10 for ITSM if you are using something like discovery to populate
the CMDB. Only consider a higher setting if your DB will be more highly taxed
from an I/O standpoint than that. And if that is the case, there are probably
some other things at the DB level that would increase performance without the
side effects to the other forms.
Rick
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________
From: Guillaume Rheault
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:23:14 -0800
To: <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE
That is a good question. I believe there is no white paper or recommendation
from BMC, like there is for the number of list and fast threads.
One place to look for guidance is with database performance monitoring tools.
In general terms, without delving into each database specifically, if the
database monitoring tool reports that there is too much contention on the
arschema table, you would increase this number. Large Remedy deployments can
have this number set to 100...
Unless you are the DBA too, I suggest you get your DBA involved in monitoring
the database. There are many things that can be done at the database level to
improve performance: partitioning, esoteric indexes, stored execution outlines,
caching lookup tables, etc, etc.
-Guillaume
________________________________
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Frex Popo
Sent: Wed 02/11/09 2:54 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE
**
Thanks Guillaume, will bear this point in mind for future customization.
Does anyone know how the server goes about assigning those id's in each block
to new requests. Are they assigned randomly or do they start from the smallest
and then onwards to the largest in the block.
What needs to be taken into consideration when deciding what number to set the
NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE?
Kind Regards
frex
--- En date de : Mar 10.2.09, Guillaume Rheault <guilla...@dcshq.com> a écrit :
De: Guillaume Rheault <guilla...@dcshq.com>
Objet: Re: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE
À: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Date: Mardi 10 Février 2009, 17h22
As you know, the reason why this feature was implemented was to improve
performance by reducing the contention on the arschema table. This feature
mimics the Oracle sequence, which has the same issue: there can be gaps in the
sequence because of instance crashes or rollback in transactions. I guess the
general advise is not to rely on the Request ID field (Field ID 1) anymore for
anything, as much as possible: ideally relationships would be done on the
Instance ID field (field 179) instead, or some other criteria. Actually the
ITSM apps aim that goal, so therefore we should too.... -Guillaume
________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion
list(ARSList) on behalf of Frex Popo Sent: Tue 02/10/09 10:41 AM To:
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE ** Dear all, I have and
ITSM7.0/ARS7.1 instalation, I have set the NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE to 10. I would
like to know how do you decide the size, is it based on the number of server
threads, the number of DB processes, number of users etc etc? I am aware that
if you restart the server you loose the sequencing, however are there any other
implications if you set this too high? The reason I am also asking is, I
noticed that some requests which were created say @ 10AM (for the sake of
argument!) have a sequence with a number grater than others which were created
@ 11AM. Many thanks in advance frex________________________________ Ne
pleurez pas si votre Webmail ferme. Récupérez votre historique sur Yahoo! Mail
<http://fr.rd.yahoo.com/mail_fr/taglines/caramail/*http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/mail/transfert_mails.html>__Platinum
Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI
Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
________________________________
Ne pleurez pas si votre Webmail ferme. Récupérez votre historique sur Yahoo!
Mail
<http://fr.rd.yahoo.com/mail_fr/taglines/caramail/*http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/mail/transfert_mails.html>__Platinum
Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___
__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
