HP3000-L Archives

March 1999, Week 2

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:
Jeffrey Kubler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jeffrey Kubler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:03:46 PST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
Jeff,
You see it as a process.  It is pin 11 on a system with only one XM and
12, 13, 14 etc. when you have additional user volumes.
Jeff Kubler
>True, but I don't know how to measure xm to see if it is busy. All my
data
>is evenly spread across multiple drives and no disc i/o issues are
evident.
>The system is running on an EMC raid-1 3430, and EMC even said the load
is
>even and no drives are more busy than others. Can xm cause problems
that I
>would not see at the disc level?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeffrey Kubler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 7:23 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Private Volumes and Performance Issues
>
>
>jeff,
>I hadn't noticed anyone commenting on one issue related to your
question
>which is a potential performance issue.  That is the issue of the
>multiple transaction managers you get when you use private volumes.  In
>very I/O intensive apps the posting of the single transaction manager
>can be a big hit (which I understand there may be some ability to
>control the priority of this process added by HP in the future).  With
>private volumes you get an additional XM process for each one which can
>help spread out the impact.
>Jeff Kubler
>Kubler Consulting
>541-745-7457 www.proaxis.com/~jrkubler
>>Reply-To:     Jeff Mikolai <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sender:       HP-3000 Systems Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
>>From:         Jeff Mikolai <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject:      Private Volumes and Performance Issues
>>To:           [log in to unmask]
>>
>>I am having a discussion about private volumes and performance issues.
>I have a relatively large account with 3 large databases. At one point
>in time, these three databases have been split across 3 private
volumes.
>Now they all reside on one private volume. According to HP back when we
>did this, they said this would not be a performance issue. Could
someone
>enlighten me on this issue a bit.
>
>>Thank you,
>>Jeff Mikolai
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2