HP3000-L Archives

November 1999, Week 1

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:
Carl McNamee <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Carl McNamee <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:42:19 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
We have been wondering along the lines of Nick.  When only one database is
being posted to the batch job has great through put.  It's when we add the
second and subsequent jobs that things go downhill, quickly!.  I have opened
a call with the response center to see if they can help us pin point the
problem.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Demos [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 11:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Performance question


Hello Stan,

Well brevity is a virtue but I hope you are better soon.

This Image thing is a puzzler:

1.  No masters.
2,  TPI off.
3.  Old data base purged and rebuilt, I assume.
4.  I assume also an efficient blocking factor.
5.  No sorted chains, I would also assume.
6.  Is access to the root file required for each put?  I think not
    but even if it were it would stay in memory, so still no problem.

Is there a kind of bug in Image where the code uses the same semaphore
even
though different data bases are involved?  I am grasping at straws here,
I know.  I wonder what the test performance is like when only one
data base is rebuilt at a time.

Nick D.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2