Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+DB\s+Bufferpool\s+sizing\s+\-\s+continued\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+DB\s+Bufferpool\s+sizing\s+\-\s+continued\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:41:16 -0400; Pertaining to the recent discussion of buffpool sizing (larger vs smaller - cpu usage, etc) I would like to get some opinions. I followed the discussion and was aware of the issue of going too large; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00389.html (13,075 bytes)
2. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: "Mueller, Ken" <KMueller AT MCARTA DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:35:49 -0400; Zoltan We also run TSM on a dedicated Linux/Intel, although on a smaller scale than you. The server has 2.5GB RAM and two 2GHz Xeons. Our DB is 23G of which 70% is in use. Buffer pool is set at 32M (; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00393.html (14,591 bytes)
3. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:14:59 -0400; We tried to go RAW and I don't think we could. Can't remember why - I think it has to do with RH Linux restrictions. The DB are mirrored across two disk subsystems/controllers. The primary copy is on; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00395.html (16,114 bytes)
4. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: David E Ehresman <deehre01 AT LOUISVILLE DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:25:47 -0400; Our tsm runs on a p550 with 4 processors and 8 GB of memory running Aix 5.3. The DB is 131,072 MB and is 64% utilized. Bufpoolsize is 1024 MB. Expirations average around 3 hours. Pertaining to the re; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00396.html (13,679 bytes)
5. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:31:50 -0400; Brag.....brag.....brag..................................;--))) Yes, we fully realize that an AIX box would have been leaps faster............It just wasn't going to happen. AIX is being phased out co; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00397.html (14,149 bytes)
6. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Andy Huebner <Andy.Huebner AT ALCONLABS DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:53:28 -0500; Expiration has more to do with disk speed than CPU power. Have you looked at your disk performance? Our DB is 120GB @ 89% and is on 14 FC drives (as presented from the disk array). The log is on a se; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00407.html (17,518 bytes)
7. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: CAYE PIERRE <Pierre.Caye AT ALCATEL-LUCENT DOT FR>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:44:40 +0200; AIX 5.3 DS4700 Disks TSM 5.3.4.2 TSM Databases are not mirrored TSM DB Disks are equally configured, LUNs are 36Gb size LOGS are mirrored, LUNs are 14Gb size Buffpool is setup at about 25% of memory,; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00414.html (21,128 bytes)
8. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:12:57 -0400; All disk are internal. We needed quantity vs speed (more for the LZ than DB) so we didn't have a choice (Dell) other than the big SATA drives (biggest SAS was around 300GB). Unfortunately (please cor; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00416.html (18,106 bytes)
9. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:20:09 -0400; I agree. My slowest/problem DB is 130GB but has 287M objects. My other server with primarily Notes backups (same hardware - same physical configuration) runs expires in < 1-hour. CAYE PIERRE <Pierre.; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00418.html (21,569 bytes)
10. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Rainer Schöpf <rainer.schoepf AT PROTEOSYS DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:23:53 +0200; Hi, did you look at the XE Toolkit: http://www.captivemetrics.com/Captive_Metrics/XE_Toolkit.html ? Rainer -- On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: -- ProteoSys AG Carl-Zeiss-Straße 51 551; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00419.html (21,456 bytes)
11. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:36:41 -0400; What do you think of nmon? What aspects of linuxen do you want to monitor, yet can't? However much I like linux, (and it's "lots") I think that omegamon for mainframes is probably going to be more d; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00421.html (13,089 bytes)
12. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: "Mueller, Ken" <KMueller AT MCARTA DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:47:48 -0400; Have you looked at dstat from Dag Wieers - http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/dstat/ All disk are internal. We needed quantity vs speed (more for the LZ than DB) so we didn't have a choice (Dell) other; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00423.html (18,527 bytes)
13. Re: [ADSM-L] DB Bufferpool sizing - continued (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:52:27 -0400; I agree on your assessment. I would like to see things like......who is hitting the disk (i/o mapping).....cpu utilization trend analysis (not just who is hitting it, now!), communications bottleneck; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2008-04/msg00424.html (13,848 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]