Gregory: Do you have a z114 with 10 IFLs? That is the maximum number of IFLs available on a z114 (2818-M10) and would be unusual. Is this a single z/VM LPAR? How much memory is on the z114 (and in this LPAR)? Also, what was the specific MT/Model for the P7 box?
If you were to compare a 12-core Power 730 (8231-E2C) to a 10 IFL z114 the Power system has 1.4 to 2.0 times the capacity of the z114. Jim Elliott Senior IT Consultant - GlassHouse Systems Inc. On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:47 AM Grzegorz Powiedziuk <gpowiedz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I could use some ideas. We moved a huge db2 from old p7 aix to rhel7 on > Z and we are having big performance issues. > Same memory, CPU number is down from 12 to 10. Although they had > multithreading ON so they saw more "cpus" We have faster disks (moved to > flash), faster FCP cards and faster network adapters. > We are running on z114 and at this point that is practically the only VM > running with IFLs on this box. > > It seems that when "jobs" run on their own, they finish faster than what > they were getting on AIX. > But problems start if there is more than we can chew. So either few jobs > running at the same time or some reorgs running in the database. > > Load average goes to 150-200, cpus are at 100% (kernel time can go to > 20-30% ) but no iowaits. > Plenty of memory available. > At this point everything becomes extremely slow, people are starting having > problems with connecting to db2 (annd sshing), basically it becomes a > nightmare > > This db2 is massive (30+TB) and it is a multinode configuration (17 nodes > running on the same host). We moved it like this 1:1 from that old AIX. > > DB2 is running on the ext4 filesystem (Actually a huge number of > filesystems- each NODE is a separate logical volume). Separate for logs, > data. > > If this continues like this, we will add 2 cpus but I have a feeling that > it will not make much difference. > > I know that we end up with a massive number of processes and a massive > number of file descriptors (lsof sice it shows also threads now, is > practically useless - it would run for way too long - 10-30 minutes > probably) . > > A snapshot from just now: > > top - 08:37:50 up 11 days, 12:04, 28 users, load average: 188.29, 151.07, > 133.54 > Tasks: 1843 total, 11 running, 1832 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > %Cpu0 : 76.3 us, 16.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 1.0 hi, 3.2 si, > 2.9 st > %Cpu1 : 66.1 us, 31.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.3 si, > 0.6 st > %Cpu2 : 66.9 us, 31.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.3 hi, 1.3 si, > 0.3 st > %Cpu3 : 74.7 us, 23.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.3 hi, 1.3 si, > 0.3 st > %Cpu4 : 86.7 us, 10.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.3 si, > 0.6 st > %Cpu5 : 83.8 us, 13.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.6 si, > 0.3 st > %Cpu6 : 81.6 us, 15.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.9 si, > 0.6 st > %Cpu7 : 70.6 us, 26.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.9 si, > 0.6 st > %Cpu8 : 70.5 us, 26.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.6 hi, 1.6 si, > 0.6 st > %Cpu9 : 84.1 us, 13.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.3 hi, 1.3 si, > 0.6 st > KiB Mem : 15424256+total, 1069280 free, 18452168 used, 13472112+buff/cache > KiB Swap: 52305904 total, 51231216 free, 1074688 used. 17399028 avail Mem > > Where can I look for potential relief? Everyone was hoping for a better > performance not worse.I am hoping that there is something we can tweak to > make this better. > I will appreciate any ideas! > thanks > Gregory > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or > visit > http://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
