By enabling AUTODEFER we should have bypassed XM all together.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tad Bochan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Performance question
>
>
> Carl,
> I am probably out of my depth here, but have you considered
> if XM may be the bottleneck ?
> Tad.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl McNamee <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 02 November 1999 16:03
> Subject: Re: Performance question
>
>
> >Ouch!  I bet that hurt.  We do have Netbase but the
> databases in question
> >are not being shadowed.  We do not use HP's Mirror/iX
> product but these
> >databases do reside on an EMC mirrored disks.  The Symm
> Manager software
> >that monitors the EMC box is showing very little disk activity.
> >
> >
> >
> >Carl
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tony Summers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 3:28 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Performance question
> >
> >
> >Re Image performance.
> >
> >Just a thought - are these databases being shadowed by Netbase,
> > Shareplex or Disk Mirroring ?
> >
> >We once had a situation where we were loading a database far faster
> >than Netbase could empty its own message files - and, once
> the primary
> >message file was full, the main process was impeded until
> Netbase caught
> up.
> >
> >
> >Best of Luck.
> >
>