HP3000-L Archives

April 1995, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jim Wowchuk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jim Wowchuk <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:44:56 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
At 01:40 AM 20/4/95 GMT, Larry Byler wrote:
[snip...]
>Here's what we can do quickly:
>o   Currently SPOOLF ;ALTER dequeues and requeues *even if the priority
>    or device specification doesn't change*.  Do a SPOOLF O@;SHOW as an SM
[snip...]
That seems eminently sensible.
 
>o   Apply a heuristic to the DELETE function -- reverse the order of the
>    individual file deletions.  Because of the way spool file entries are
>    cached for deletion and XM directory transactions are logged, this
>    should substantially reduce the wait time for the DELETE user.
[snip...]
Sounds reasonable if you say so.
 
>o   Increase the spool file limit to 50000.  ...
[snip...]
 
I'm a little concerned at what the problem is here.  Is it that a customer
on an HP3000 really has over 9000 spoolfiles queued up waiting to print?  I
mean, that's a really large number isn't it?  Or is the problem that the
customer doing something else with these spoolfiles?  For example, are most
of these deferred waiting for backup or archiving?  Is the limit reached
only when there is a serious problem such as a device(s) down?  Is the
problem related to multiple machines channelling all printing through a
single HP3000? Are many of these empty spoolfiles?  Or single pages?
 
Perhaps rather than a single IN, and OUT groups of the HPSPOOL account,
multiple domains could be established with multiple SPFDIRs.
 
In anycase, my concern is that no matter what the limit, a change that
provides only a single factor of improvement will not reduce the problem.
If things are not being used the way they were designed then it is hardly
surprising there is a problem.  If they are using it that way, then is it a
result of there being another problem?  If not, then maybe the entire design
needs to be reconsidered.
 
BTW, I certainly appreciate Larry's and the other Lab folks' consultation
and their candour, both on this forum and at IPROF.  I hope they get as much
out of it as we do!
 
Kindest regards.
----
Jim "seMPEr" Wowchuk           Internet:    [log in to unmask]
Vanguard Computer Services     Compu$erve:  100036,106
 _--_|\                        Post:        PO Box 18, North Ryde, NSW 2113
/      \                       Phone:       +61 (2) 888-9688
\.--.__/ <---Sydney NSW        Fax:         +61 (2) 888-3056
      v      Australia

ATOM RSS1 RSS2