In a message dated 11/20/01 5:12:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<<
Several factors should be considered :
- Are all the runs manipulating the same data ? The same amount of data ?
The same data structures ?
{~~~~~
{ The same data base structure, the same software.
{ The copies of the data on the 960 and N220 are a little older and a little
smaller.
{~~~~~
- How many CPUs does your 969 have ?
{~~~~~
{ The 969 has two CPUs and MRP is running simultaneously in two separate
{ accounts, each with its own data. The comparisons are for the same
{ account on each machine.
{~~~~~
- What are your runs exactly doing ? Read-only ? Read/update ? Adds ?
{~~~~~
{ All the stuff that MRP does. Lots of reading and updating, and a fair
amount
{ of adding (the week's requisitions, all sorts of data sets and flat files
that get
{ filled with data for reporting, etc.
{~~~~~
- How much free space on each box ?
- How fragmented is your disk space on all systems ?
- How fragmented are your data files (i.e. how many extents, and how spread
are the extents ?)
{~~~~~
{ The N220 is brand new, and MRP is just about the first thing tried after
the
{ data was loaded from backup tapes. So there wasn't much chance for
{ fragmentation. I'd have to go back and check the amount of free space,
{ but with 114 Gb of disc on the N220 I'm sure there is a LOT of space there.
{~~~~~
- How are data/index files implemented ? Separate spindles ?
{~~~~~
{ Whichever spindles RESTORE put them on.
{~~~~~
- What about storage ? HP-IB ? HP-FL ? SCSI/SE ? F/W ? HVD ? LVD ?
{~~~~~
{ No more HP-IB or HP-FL, even on the 960, which I think is all F/W
{ I'd have to check on the disc drives.
{~~~~~
Here are a few performance indices :
- 960 = 1.9
- N400-220 = 9.0
- 969/100 (one-way) = 5.2
- 969/420 (four-way) = 21.5
In other words, we may or may not have comparable propositions. I would tend
to think that 7.0 has a performance hit, but, from the technical data I've
had, i would expect a very moderate perf hit.
{~~~~~
{ Of course they are not comparable, but they are what we have.
{ I've heard that performance hits with 6.5 and 7.0 might be around 20%
{~~~~~
In other words, a careful look should be taken at these runs. There may be
some misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of something (Hardware config ?
Disk space management ?). Or there may be a real perf hit (I'm not ruling it
out flatly), but it has to be proved. There are lots of tools to assist you
: HP's Glance Plus and Glane Plus Pak, SPT (for individual processes - but
that may be moot since I assume the same code is used on all three boxes),
PerfView (uses Scope as a collection tool), and third party tools like SOS
and the complete Lund stuff (not an endorsement, just a mention).
HTH
Christian "loves to do perf stuff" Lheureux
>>
Yes, we will be looking at this more carefully. We have Glance and Lund's
SOS.
I posted this because it was such a shock.
Cecile Chi
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
