HP3000-L Archives

August 1998, 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:
Andreas Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:11:16 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Yes, from time to time we have similiar problems. All are related to TCP/IP
connections. On a multi-processor box, only one Processor is hung.

For test purposes, we installed WorkLoadMgr/iX - is a great help by defining a
workgroup with maxcpupct 0 and to move a "crazy" process into this workgroup.

Not having WorkLoadMgr/iX, the only way (if such a session cannot be aborted) is
to change the PRI to 253 ...

Best regards, Andreas Schmidt, CSC, Germany





[log in to unmask] on 08/18/98 10:07:54 PM

Please respond to [log in to unmask]

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Andreas Schmidt/HI/CSC)
Subject:  "Runaway" CPU Process




Has anyone encountered a situation where a process consumes all the CPU
and consequently, locks up the system?
We have two HP3000s, a 939KS and a 996/300 that users access via TCP
connections.  The 939 is running version 5.0 of MPE (PP 6) and the 996
version 5.5 (PP 4).  We typically have 60 sessions on the 939 and 100
sessions on the 996.  The problem seems to happen (mostly) on the 996.
We THINK the trouble is related to a client server product which runs on
both CPUs.  We have the "listener job" running in the DQ, but at times
it consumes (as other processes do) as much CPU as it can get.  I
understand that.  What I don't understand is why, at various times, it
locks up the system.  It hold onto all the CPU it can get.  The software
vendor is working with us to resolve this issue.
Perhaps my queues are not set properly.  This is how they are set (both
boxes):
   QUEUE    BASE    LIMIT    MIN    MAX    ACTUAL   BOOST   TIMESLICE
   -----    ----    -----    ---    ---    ------   -----   ---------
    CQ      152     200      1      2000   5        DECAY     200
    DQ      195     238      2000   2000   2000     DECAY     200
    EQ      240     253      2000   2000   2000     DECAY     200
We do not use the EQ much.  Would dropping the base/limit of the EQ
help?  Should the C and D queues overlap as I have them set, or not?
Any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated.
TIA,
Bob Sorenson - System Manager
Infotrust

ATOM RSS1 RSS2