HP3000-L Archives

January 2004, Week 4

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:
Craig Lalley <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Craig Lalley <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:28:02 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Tom,

Buffer specs were put in by Jon Bales, too bad you can't as Fred about the
experience.

They are no longer used (as of 6.0?), they are there only for compatability
purposes.

But it used to help to blow them out. ie  21(1/120)

-Craig

--- "Emerson, Tom" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> something came up today that prompted me to think about this, and after a bit
> of research, I found that some of the parameters of our production database
> are "default" values -- it is pretty much a "given" that "defaults are bad",
> but I'd like some clarification on the following [and suggestions on how to
> determine the "proper" settings]
>
> In particular, the parameter I'm talking about is the BUFFSPECS as reported
> in dbutil:
>
>   Buffer specifications:
>   12(1/2),13(3/4),14(5/6),15(7/8),16(9/10),17(11/12),18(13/14),
>   19(15/16),20(17/18),21(19/120)
>
> as I understand this, the system will allocate a dozen buffers for the first
> two users, add one more for the next two, add another for the next two, and
> so on until there are 20+ users (at which point no more buffers are
> allocated)
>
> Instinctively "this seems bad" because if there are lots of "quick accesses",
> the number of concurrent opens might fluctuate from half a dozen to 20+ and
> back again in the span of a few seconds -- every time you cross a "user count
> boundary", the system has to either allocate or free up "one buffer" -- I'm
> envisioning severe memory thrashing/fragmentation
>
> OTOH, once things "really get going" for the day [and considering potential
> accesses via an Oracle "gateway" and/or the standard ODBC interface], the
> number of "concurrent" opens might  hang out around the 50-100 mark, at which
> point "21 buffers" seems far too small
>
> am I right about this being, shall we say, "less than optimal", or am I just
> being paranoid?  What do people recommend for a more "realistic" setting of
> "buffspecs"? [again, considering both oracle and ODBC access methonds in
> addition to normal HP-based (cobol) processes using DBOPEN]
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2