Folks,
I notice that when I do two concurrent processes (like ANALYZE.FILE from one
window and SELECT from another window) on the same large (3GB,64-bit) file,
the 'Pages/sec' count in Win2K3 goes through the roof, even though the
'memory commit charge' is only 176MB out of 2465MB.
Maybe the 'Pa
the legislators" - P.J. O'Rourke
Dan Fitzgerald
From: "Foo Chia Teck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Reply Performance Degraded running u10.0.0 in Aix 5.2 ML 2
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004
64K strips? is that like 64k bytes, (i.e. 64 * 1024 = 65536 bytes?)
- Original Message -
From: "Foo Chia Teck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:39 AM
Subject: Reply Performance Degraded running u10.0.0 in Aix 5.2 ML 2
H
the swap spaces from 4gb to 8gb. but i still having the performance
degraded issue. below is the usages of swap spaces before and after increment. The
user claim that the system starting slow after 48 hours, so the mis guys have to
restart universe every 48 hours.
[ServerX1]:/>lsps -a
Page Sp
Hmmm. Are you saying 'Ogres' are like onions?
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 07:05, Scott Richardson wrote:
> Performance of UV applications on various Operating Systems
> is not rocket science. Perhaps better described as large, nasty
> tight onions that need peeling, one l
common to have UniVerse run-aways but we have seen it
infrequently. If you see a process consuming high cpu look at it in
PORT.STATUS to see what it is doing. Check you are not using PORT.STATUS
for any utilities that run often. This can have a major effect on the
performance of the machine
I thought that Progress lives as more-or-less a traditional SQL database.
Please clarify...What is special about Progress ?
--Bill
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Why?
He's got 4Gb of ram. If he overflows that by JUST ONE BYTE, if he was
running linux his performance would *collapse*.
If you do not have twice ram as swap, you only need to use ONE BYTE of
swap space and the linux algorithm will shit itself trying to cope. The
algorithm does not work
n List
Subject: RE: Performance Degraded running u10.0.0 in Aix 5.2 ML 2
Okay, it's AIX not linux, but I've just noticed that RAM = swap.
You are an ABSOLUTE FOOL if you do that on linux. Maybe (or maybe not)
the same applies to AIX - quite likely since they are both nixen and
probab
April 2004 14:06
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Performance Degraded running u10.0.0 in Aix 5.2 ML 2
Performance of UV applications on various Operating Systems
is not rocket science. Perhaps better described as large, nasty
tight onions that need peeling, one layer at a time, and
understan
y help, or hurt your cause, and why.
See my other reply to the "Performance Degraded..." thread.
When you peel all the layers off these tight, nasty onions, and
understand what's going on at all the different levels - it make it easy
to identify, address & resolve these proble
Performance of UV applications on various Operating Systems
is not rocket science. Perhaps better described as large, nasty
tight onions that need peeling, one layer at a time, and
understanding what each peeled layer is doing and why.
Once this knowledge is acquired and understood, a plan can
be
Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 4:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Performance Degraded running u10.0.0 in Aix 5.2 ML 2
Hi,
We are facing performance degraded when running Universe 10.0.0 in AIX
5L 5.2.
A bit intro on hardware specs. We are using pSeries 650 running on SMP 2
Power4 processor with
Hi,
We are facing performance degraded when running Universe 10.0.0 in AIX 5L
5.2.
A bit intro on hardware specs. We are using pSeries 650 running on SMP 2
Power4 processor with 4GB of RAM, 4GB Paging size and RAID5 SSA Hard Disk.
My Universe configuration as below:
Current tunable parameter
n Software Development
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis
>Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 1:36 PM
>To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: UniVerse vs Progress Performance
>
>I'm curious i
D] On
Behalf Of André Nel
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: UniVerse vs Progress Performance
Hi All
Visited a neighbouring company (same line of business as ours) running 430
users on a Compaq Proliant box with SCO Openserver 5 and Progress version
9.1c as dat
ced a
very high level of system calls, but that was also on our previous Sequent
hardware - so maybe it is our app not UniVerse or AIX.
What I am trying to say is that by converting from D3 you may have extensive
performance hits in your application code, which is not obvious.
We are intending d
ent: Friday, April 09, 2004 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: Performance
Kevin,
When you finally get this solved, let us know what the answer was. I
am sure all responders would be interested.
re. /tmp: I've seen marginal but not incredible inprovement moving
UVTEMP onto our EMC storage rather than
Thanks to everyone for the performance suggestions...I will report to
the board as soon as we resolve it.
Kevin
Kevin D. Vezertzis
Project Manager
Cypress Business Solutions, LLC.
678.494.9353 ext. 6576 Fax 678.494.9354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit us at www.cypressesolutions.com
users will run off that copy. Again, we're
talking incremental, not incredible, performance improvements.
I'm grasping here. I'm sure IBM's Hdwr, AIX, & U2 support has gone
through all this already. You will post the answer once you know it,
won't you?
cd
In a message dated 4/8/2004 12:20:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1.) Application files have all been analyzed and sized correctly.
> 2.) IBM U2 support analyzed Universe files, locking, swap space and all
> have been adjusted accordingly or were 'ok'.
> 3.) We are ru
You've gotten some good input, but I'd like to recommend dumping Raid 5
altogether. With several clients I've seen significant performance
increases from switching from (recommended) Raid 5 arrays to what may be
referred to as Raid 10 (Raid 0+1/1+0) arrays. This type of array m
ehalf Of Kevin Vezertzis
Sent: 08 April 2004 20:18
To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
Subject: RE: Performance
Thanks for all of the posts...here are some of our 'knowns'...
1.) Application files have all been analyzed and sized correctly.
2.) IBM U2 support analyzed Unive
ks again for all of the help.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kevin Vezertzis
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Performance
We are looking for some insight from anyone that has experienced
performance degrada
il 08, 2004 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Performance
We are looking for some insight from anyone that has experienced
performance degradation in UV, as it relates to the OS. We are running
UV 10.0.14 on AIX 5.1.we are having terrible 'latency' within the
application. This is
O'Rourke
Dan Fitzgerald
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U2 Users Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:30:58 -0400
If you are running Topas to monitor the system performa
ot;U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Performance
>
>
>
>
> If you are running Topas to monitor the system performance, only have one
> instance of it open and have it update once every 5 seconds. I have h
r is available on the internet
and has a free 10 day evaluation license available that will allow
you to track system-wide parameters and performance metrics
that will provide a very clear picture as to what is happening.
Check it out at www.deltek.us.
This tool has been used on AIX 5.1, o
If you are running Topas to monitor the system performance, only have one
instance of it open and have it update once every 5 seconds. I have heard of
situations where 5 or 6 people would have topas running at the same time
effectively bogging the server down. Topas can hog resources if not
gt;>
156027 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
77219 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
148 5 >>>>>
49614 >>>>>>>>
Screen savers? Best performance to background processes? On AIX?
-Original Message-
From: Brian Leach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:24 AM
To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
Subject: RE: Performance
First things,
1. turn off any screen savers
2. e
4 9:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Performance
>
>
> We are looking for some insight from anyone that has
> experienced performance degradation in UV, as it relates to
> the OS. We are running UV 10.0.14 on AIX 5.1.we are having
> terrible 'latency'
Duh duh duh
Please ignore my last post.
I scanned it and missed 'AIX'.
It's the end of the day here
Brian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Vezertzis
Sent: 08 April 2004 17:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
There are many areas that could give you problems, file sizing, memory,
swap space, etc. I would suggest using some performance monitoring
tools to pin down where the performance issues lie and go from there.
IBM AIX has a third party tool "nmon" available that has tools
available to
First things,
1. turn off any screen savers
2. ensure your server is set to adjusted to give best performance to
background processes
3. turn off any virus checkers
4. turn off veritas backup
Brian Leach
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
CTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Vezertzis
Sent: 08 April 2004 17:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Performance
We are looking for some insight from anyone that has experienced performance
degradation in UV, as it relates to the OS. We are running UV 10.0.14 on
AIX 5.1.we are ha
We are looking for some insight from anyone that has experienced
performance degradation in UV, as it relates to the OS. We are running
UV 10.0.14 on AIX 5.1.we are having terrible 'latency' within the
application. This is a recent conversion from D3 to UV and our client
is
If you're still having performance issues - take a look at
www.deltek.us - The DPMonitor Performance Monitor.
We peel the onion, layer by layer, simply, easily, and
straight-fowardly.
The DPMonitor Performance Monitor will clearly identify where
the bottlenecks are on your application server
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 March 2004 10:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UniVerse vs Progress Performance
Hi,
Must agree with Tim in that performance bottlenecks are complex things to
track down, and others have all made valid suggestions regarding Indexes
etc . However I have no
: UniVerse vs Progress Performance
Don't get me wrong Dynamic Files have there uses, but they are NOT
maintenance free (as some people think) they are low maintenance. Files
that do not increase in size or their increase can be predicted over a
given period , in my view, should not be Dynamic
Hi,
Must agree with Tim in that performance bottlenecks are complex things to
track down, and others have all made valid suggestions regarding Indexes
etc . However I have noticed that you say ALL your files are T30 (i.e
Dynamic). Why ?, Dynamic files carry an overhead with UniVerse and at
In a message dated 3/23/2004 12:47:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>The fact is, they may have done something brilliant with their
> system and your 'mileage' might be completely typical while they are
> experiencing atypically good results. Just because we are mv doesn
on 03/23/2004 04:07:09 AM:
Comparing the 2 boxes, the amount of users on each box, any reason
why we are struggling with the 190 users? The transaction volumes of
the company running 430 users are considerably higher than ours?
You haven't provided enough information to say for certain; evaluating
gh information to say for certain; evaluating
performance bottlenecks can be quite involved. How many disks are being
used, and what type of RAID is employed? What are you seeing as far as CPU
utilization? You can use sar or topas to determine this. Naturally, there
are many, MANY metrics to
Hi All
Visited a neighbouring company (same line of business as ours) running 430 users on a
Compaq Proliant box with SCO Openserver 5 and Progress version 9.1c as database.
Application is in-house. At the time of my visit the CPU usage was constantly running
at 80%. No problems being experi
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:08 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete
query
Gives Mark the "most improved player" award.
Will
In a message dated 3/16/2004 5:0
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete query
> Gives Mark the "most improved player" award.
> Will
>
> In a messa
Gives Mark the "most improved player" award.
Will
In a message dated 3/16/2004 5:07:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> LOOP WHILE READNEXT ID DO
>READV DTE FROM F.MASTER, ID, 5 THEN
> IF DTE LE DEL.DATE THEN
> DELETE F.MASTER, ID
> DELE
you go (to).
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete query
> In a message dated 3/15/2004 9:54:01 AM East
In a message dated 3/15/2004 9:54:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> 10 READNEXT ID ELSE STOP
>READV DTE FROM F.MASTER, ID, 5 ELSE GOTO 10
>IF DTE GT DEL.DATE THEN GOTO 10
>DELETE F.MASTER, ID
>DELETE F.REFERENCE, ID
>GOTO 10
I count three goto's
So thre
ehalf Of Scott Richardson
Sent: 15 March 2004 13:08
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete
query
Great points from Wol, as always.
What kind of /tmp disk space do you have on this system?
(Assuming that /tmp is where UV does some of it&#
cent.
- Original Message -
From: "ashish ratna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anthony Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete query
H
on List
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete query
I forgot to mention why.
U2 definately prefers ADDing records instead of DELETing records.. any day.
- Original Message -
From: ashish ratna
I forgot to mention why.
U2 definately prefers ADDing records instead of DELETing records.. any day.
- Original Message -
From: ashish ratna
To: Anthony Youngman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: Help Needed regarding performance
, March 15, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete query
Hi Wol,
The scenario is that-
We have a master file having more than 3-4 million records and have corresponding
reference file which contains reference data for this master file.
Now we
/tmp is small, single physical disk, or heavily fragmented,
this would also contribute to poor query runtime performance.
Ditto on your system's swap space, which should be at least
2X physical memory.
Wol's approach of breaking down the query into selecting
smaller groups of data is a
, March 15, 2004 4:50 PM
To: ashish ratna
Subject: RE: Help Needed regarding performance improvement of delete
query
Ahhh
I thought you were selecting records and deleting them. So the first
thousand would have disappeared, and you would obviously get a different
thousand next time round because
a single index, will
pick up only or mostly records that you are going to delete, the better.
That will SERIOUSLY reduce the time taken and the performance hit.
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of ashish ratna
Sent: 15 March 2
Hi All,
We are working for purging of old data from the database. But we are facing
performance problems in this.
We are using select query which is created dynamically on the basis of number of
records. We want to know if there is any limit for size of query in Universe.
Although in
Hi Martin,
excuse the late answer, we have a StorageTek D280 with 1GB cache and we see
good performance after tuning the cache.
Björn Eklund
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Martin Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 26 februari 2004 13:21
Till: U2 Users Discussion List
Ämne: Re
Bjorn
If you didnt mind me asking, what hardware are you using in terms of
SAN, is it EMC Clarion, Storagetek/Sun StoreEdge etc and also how much
cache have you got on those arrays? 1GB?
Do you see good performance over that?
Thanks
Björn Eklund wrote:
Hi Martin,
we have equipment that
s cache we got an acceptable
performance.
After some time we started looking for other ways of improving performance
and did a resize on all our files. The biggest change was from blocksizze 2
to 4 on almost every file. This made an improvement of about 50-100%
perfomance on our disk intense batchp
. After tuning the storage kabinett's cache we got an acceptable
performance.
After some time we started looking for other ways of improving performance
and did a resize on all our files. The biggest change was from blocksizze 2
to 4 on almost every file. This made an improvement of about 5
device is usually always 100% busy, no real CPU overhead
but with 15MB/s tops WRITE. There is only ONE person using this system
(to test throughput).
I don't claim to be an expert in performance monitoring so I'm probably
setting myself up for a big fall but...
Are you comparing like with
semsys:seminfo_semmni=100
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=985
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1218
set maxpgio=240
set maxphys=8388608
I have yet to change the throughput on the ssd drivers in order to break
the 1MB barrier, however I still would have expected better performance.
UDTCONFIG is as yet unchanged from default
65 matches
Mail list logo
