Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | Emerson, Tom # El Monte |
Date: | Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:34:00 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Are you positively sure you've set the "users per logging process" higher
than the default? Verify as follows:
R:[TOM]/EMERSON/WORK>sysgen
SYSGEN version E.02.01 : catalog version E.02.01 MON, NOV 20, 2000, 4:24
PM
Copyright 1987 Hewlett-Packard Co. All Rights Reserved.
** First level command **
io log (lo) misc (mi) spu (sp)
sysfile (sy)
sysgen> lo
** LOG configurator commands **
show (sh) slog (sl) ulog (ul)
clear (cl)(c) exit (ex)(e) help (he)(h) hold (ho)
oclose (oc) redo
log>sh
configurable item max min current
----------------- ------- ------- -------
# of user logging processes 128 2 64
# users per logging process 1140 1 128
system log events event # status
----------------- ------- ------
[list of loggable events shown here -- you'll have to scroll back to
this part of the output...]
note that the "current" column reads 128 -- we don't use user logging on our
database, so we've never had reason to "muck with" this setting -- I suspect
you might not have made this change and you are indeed hitting "the default"
[at 128 users] (or perhaps a system patch/update "reset" it to the default
-- this is a sysgen item after all...)
(and, of course, you'll have to make a tape and "update" from this tape to
have it take effect, unless this is one that takes effect at the next "start
norecovery")
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sletten Kenneth W KPWA [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> Calling all user logging experts:
>
[...]
> DBOPEN, MODE 1, ON <xxxxxx>
> MAXIMUM USER COUNT PER LOG PROCESS REACHED
> (2) Above error would "come and go", as people logged on
> and off and got into and exited various programs. At times of
> extended inability to log more people on due to above error,
> DBUTIL SHOW USERS indicated 127 - 128 active DBOPENs.
[...]
> (4) IIRC off the top, with current CM user logging the limit per
> user log process is 1100+ (can't believe I'm not sure of exact
> number; after all the IPROF / HPW / 3000-L threads I have
> been involved with on this subject).
|
|
|