I see your reindexing and raise you: We have a reindexing process that last August with lots fewer records that we have now that took some 14 hours. We ran it this weekend on the N-Class in 3:12! -- Leonard S. Berkowitz Perot Health Care Systems (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care account) voice: 617-509-1212 fax: 617-509-1955 pager: 781-226-2431 Craig Lalley <[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] com> cc: Sent by: HP-3000 Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Tune command flakes out Systems Discussion <[log in to unmask] TC.EDU> 07/26/2003 01:37 PM Please respond to Craig Lalley BTW, Do I get an award,... I could go looking for more, I bet Glance is full of this stuff. :-) But seriously it seems to me that a lot of the performance tools invented did not account for high speed raid arrays, 16GB of memory etc. As for the N-Class 750-400 with 16GB of memory, it rocks. We had a re-indexing job that was seriously CPU bound on the 997, it took about 6 hours to run. On the N-Class, it took 1:23 minutes. I had a repacking job, very I/O bound that I could only estimate between 35 and 70 hours. We never really got a chance to run it to completion on the 997. It did run for 8 hours straight once and then we had to back it out. It took 3hours and 55 minutes. Those were the only two benchmarks I had time to run. I plan on running a whole lot more! Cheers, -Craig --- Bill Cadier <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Craig writes: > > > Has anyone seen this before? It's an N-Class running MPE/ix 7.5 all > patches. > > > > :showq;status > > > > ------QUANTUM------- > > QUEUE BASE LIMIT MIN MAX ACTUAL BOOST TIMESLICE > > ----- ---- ----- --- --- ------ ----- --------- > > CQ 152 200 1 2000 27 DECAY 200 > > DQ 202 238 2000 2000 2000 DECAY 200 > > EQ 240 253 2000 2000 2000 DECAY 200 > > > > :tune ;dq=,,4000,4000,,400 > > :showq;status > > > > ------QUANTUM------- > > QUEUE BASE LIMIT MIN MAX ACTUAL BOOST TIMESLICE > > ----- ---- ----- --- --- ------ ----- --------- > > CQ 152 200 1 2000 19 DECAY 200 > > DQ 202 238 -1726 -1726 -1726 DECAY 400 > > EQ 240 253 2000 2000 2000 DECAY 200 > > > > > > What gives? > > > > -Craig > > I had a few moments this afternoon to look into this. Since it hasn't been > reported > so far, I filed SR 8606-321773 for you. This doesn't appear to be a problem > other > than reporting an odd value so I expect that this would be handled > opportunistically > the next time we have a need to change that area of the code. > > The negative values are the result of storing the values internally in ticks > as opposed > to milliseconds as they're displayed. On faster systems the internal value > can be large > enough to make the value appear to be negative if treated as a signed value. > I can cause > this on an N-class, not on a 997. > > hth, > > Bill > hp/vCSY __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *