Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-08 Thread Mohammad Khan
Thanks for the information. I never used dataspaces so my knowledge about 
them is limited. 
Mohammad

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:19:27 -0600, Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org wrote:

This is not completely true.  Not everything in DB2 V7 was required to
be under the bar.  Although the main address space was only 31-bit, V7
supported placing buffer pools in a 64-bit-addressable dataspace so that
DB2 V7 could effectively make use of more than 2 GB of real storage.  We
ran in that mode for a number of years before going to V8.
   JC Ewing


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html


Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-06 Thread Joel C. Ewing
I stand corrected.  We must have been on V8 long enough for V7
64-bit-backed to mind-morph into 64-bit-addressable.  The net effect
as you mention was that by using one or more dataspaces for buffer
pools,  DB2 V7 was no longer bound by the 2GiB limit for total virtual
space or total real storage utilization.
   JC Ewing

On 02/05/2010 05:36 PM, Wayne Driscoll wrote:
 Dataspaces (and hiperspaces, which is actually what DB2 used for 
 bufferpool extensions prior to DB2 V8) have a maximum size of 2 GiB even 
 in z/OS so it is correct that DB2 V7 was strictly 31 bit.  The use of 
 hiperpools and EDMPOOL in a dataspace allowed DB2 virtually storage to 
 grow horizontally by having additional data or hiper spaces each a max 
 of 2GiB in size.
 
 
 ===
 Wayne Driscoll
 OMEGAMON DB2 L3 Support/Development
 wdrisco(AT)us.ibm.com
 ===
 
 
 
 From:
 Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org
 To:
 IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
 Date:
 02/05/2010 05:23 PM
 Subject:
 Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool
 Sent by:
 IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
 
 
 
 This is not completely true.  Not everything in DB2 V7 was required to
 be under the bar.  Although the main address space was only 31-bit, V7
 supported placing buffer pools in a 64-bit-addressable dataspace so that
 DB2 V7 could effectively make use of more than 2 GB of real storage.  We
 ran in that mode for a number of years before going to V8.
JC Ewing
 
 On 02/03/2010 04:38 PM, Mohammad Khan wrote:
 V7 is a 31-bit app therefore everything is under the bar there. Increase 
 the 
 pool only if you have enough real memory to go with it otherwise results 
 may 
 not be to your liking. Even if there is enough real memory to go with it 
 do 
 check that you are not taking away virtual storage from another critical 
 part 
 of DBM1 address space e.g. virtual buffer pools, remember it all has to 
 fit in 
 under 2GB. This increase can help with DB2 performance if you are 
 encountering many RID pool failures DUE TO POOL SHORTAGE but doesn't 
 help 
 if the failure is due RDS RID limit. Then again you may be able to tune 
 some of 
 these queries to use better access path and not rely on RID soting.
 HTH
 Mohammad


 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 04:06:55 -0800, Patrick Falcone 
 patrick.falco...@verizon.net wrote:

 Curious if anyone can shed light on the subject matter. We're taking 
 the 
 default of 4 mb and want to increase to around 100 mb for the RID pool. 
 It 
 appears in V7 the RID is allocated below the bar, in V8 it looks like 
 the lists 
 part of the RID get moved above the bar.

 Do we need to be concerned about region or any other storage metrics, 
 performance implications to DB2?

 TIA...

 
 


-- 
Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, ARjremoveccapsew...@acm.org

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html


Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-05 Thread Joel C. Ewing
This is not completely true.  Not everything in DB2 V7 was required to
be under the bar.  Although the main address space was only 31-bit, V7
supported placing buffer pools in a 64-bit-addressable dataspace so that
DB2 V7 could effectively make use of more than 2 GB of real storage.  We
ran in that mode for a number of years before going to V8.
   JC Ewing

On 02/03/2010 04:38 PM, Mohammad Khan wrote:
 V7 is a 31-bit app therefore everything is under the bar there. Increase the 
 pool only if you have enough real memory to go with it otherwise results may 
 not be to your liking. Even if there is enough real memory to go with it do 
 check that you are not taking away virtual storage from another critical part 
 of DBM1 address space e.g. virtual buffer pools, remember it all has to fit 
 in 
 under 2GB. This increase can help with DB2 performance if you are 
 encountering many RID pool failures DUE TO POOL SHORTAGE but doesn't help 
 if the failure is due RDS RID limit. Then again you may be able to tune some 
 of 
 these queries to use better access path and not rely on RID soting.
 HTH
 Mohammad
 
 
 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 04:06:55 -0800, Patrick Falcone 
 patrick.falco...@verizon.net wrote:
 
 Curious if anyone can shed light on the subject matter. We're taking the 
 default of 4 mb and want to increase to around 100 mb for the RID pool. It 
 appears in V7 the RID is allocated below the bar, in V8 it looks like the 
 lists 
 part of the RID get moved above the bar.

 Do we need to be concerned about region or any other storage metrics, 
 performance implications to DB2?

 TIA...



-- 
Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, ARjremoveccapsew...@acm.org

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html


Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-05 Thread Wayne Driscoll
Dataspaces (and hiperspaces, which is actually what DB2 used for 
bufferpool extensions prior to DB2 V8) have a maximum size of 2 GiB even 
in z/OS so it is correct that DB2 V7 was strictly 31 bit.  The use of 
hiperpools and EDMPOOL in a dataspace allowed DB2 virtually storage to 
grow horizontally by having additional data or hiper spaces each a max 
of 2GiB in size.


===
Wayne Driscoll
OMEGAMON DB2 L3 Support/Development
wdrisco(AT)us.ibm.com
===



From:
Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
02/05/2010 05:23 PM
Subject:
Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu



This is not completely true.  Not everything in DB2 V7 was required to
be under the bar.  Although the main address space was only 31-bit, V7
supported placing buffer pools in a 64-bit-addressable dataspace so that
DB2 V7 could effectively make use of more than 2 GB of real storage.  We
ran in that mode for a number of years before going to V8.
   JC Ewing

On 02/03/2010 04:38 PM, Mohammad Khan wrote:
 V7 is a 31-bit app therefore everything is under the bar there. Increase 
the 
 pool only if you have enough real memory to go with it otherwise results 
may 
 not be to your liking. Even if there is enough real memory to go with it 
do 
 check that you are not taking away virtual storage from another critical 
part 
 of DBM1 address space e.g. virtual buffer pools, remember it all has to 
fit in 
 under 2GB. This increase can help with DB2 performance if you are 
 encountering many RID pool failures DUE TO POOL SHORTAGE but doesn't 
help 
 if the failure is due RDS RID limit. Then again you may be able to tune 
some of 
 these queries to use better access path and not rely on RID soting.
 HTH
 Mohammad
 
 
 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 04:06:55 -0800, Patrick Falcone 
 patrick.falco...@verizon.net wrote:
 
 Curious if anyone can shed light on the subject matter. We're taking 
the 
 default of 4 mb and want to increase to around 100 mb for the RID pool. 
It 
 appears in V7 the RID is allocated below the bar, in V8 it looks like 
the lists 
 part of the RID get moved above the bar.

 Do we need to be concerned about region or any other storage metrics, 
 performance implications to DB2?

 TIA...



-- 
Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, ARjremoveccapsew...@acm.org

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html


DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-03 Thread Patrick Falcone
Curious if anyone can shed light on the subject matter. We're taking the 
default of 4 mb and want to increase to around 100 mb for the RID pool. It 
appears in V7 the RID is allocated below the bar, in V8 it looks like the lists 
part of the RID get moved above the bar.

Do we need to be concerned about region or any other storage metrics, 
performance implications to DB2?

TIA...


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html


Re: DB2 V7 - Implications to storage increasing RID Pool

2010-02-03 Thread Mohammad Khan
V7 is a 31-bit app therefore everything is under the bar there. Increase the 
pool only if you have enough real memory to go with it otherwise results may 
not be to your liking. Even if there is enough real memory to go with it do 
check that you are not taking away virtual storage from another critical part 
of DBM1 address space e.g. virtual buffer pools, remember it all has to fit in 
under 2GB. This increase can help with DB2 performance if you are 
encountering many RID pool failures DUE TO POOL SHORTAGE but doesn't help 
if the failure is due RDS RID limit. Then again you may be able to tune some of 
these queries to use better access path and not rely on RID soting.
HTH
Mohammad


On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 04:06:55 -0800, Patrick Falcone 
patrick.falco...@verizon.net wrote:

Curious if anyone can shed light on the subject matter. We're taking the 
default of 4 mb and want to increase to around 100 mb for the RID pool. It 
appears in V7 the RID is allocated below the bar, in V8 it looks like the lists 
part of the RID get moved above the bar.

Do we need to be concerned about region or any other storage metrics, 
performance implications to DB2?

TIA...


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html