Author: "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:52:46 -0600
Turning FFDC off dropped OVWDB performance from 50% of a CPU to 15% - results aren't "conclusive" but sure seems dramatic to me. --Original Message-- From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:
Author: Jane Curry <jane.curry AT skills-1st.co DOT uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:03:15 +0000
I've seen similar. I am a little surprised that the default is to have this turned on. I might suggest the next version of the Release Notes do at least have a large warning somewhere about performan
Author: "Oliver Bruchhaeuser" <oliver.bruchhaeuser AT de.ibm DOT com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:44:52 +0100
Jane, Scott, do you already have applied IY50663 ? I would be very interested in ovwdb cpu usage after having this test fix installed. Kind regards Oliver Bruchhaeuser Tivoli NetView EMEA L2 Support
Author: "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:37:51 -0600
I do not, but I will put it on my to-do list --Original Message-- From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com]On Behalf Of Oliver Bruchhaeuser Sent: Tuesday, D
Author: "Dietmar Gaulhofer" <DIETMAR_GAULHOFER AT at.ibm DOT com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:46:37 +0100
I would strongly recommend installing this fix. It solved all our CPU performace problems i had with 7.1.4 at the customer site. (40000 objects) "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com>@lists
Author: Jane Curry <jane.curry AT skills-1st.co DOT uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:55:57 +0000
Performance appears to be much better having applied this APAR - thanks. Cheers, Jane Jane, Scott, do you already have applied IY50663 ? I would be very interested in ovwdb cpu usage after having thi
Author: "Hill, Channing" <CHill AT bbandt DOT com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:42:44 -0500
AIX 5.1 Netview 7.1.4 I just upgraded our test Netview 7.1.3 w/ Fixpack1 to 7.1.4 and noticed a BIG difference with startup times of ovwdb and ovtopmd.....it SUCKS. It also takes twice as long to run
Author: Stephen Hochstetler <shochste AT us.ibm DOT com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:03:07 -0600
Channing, Verify the number of objects in your object database...and then make sure the ovwdb cache size is at least 10% greater than that number. It really sounds like ovwdb cache size somehow chang
Author: "Hill, Channing" <CHill AT bbandt DOT com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:19:13 -0500
I wish it was that easy. My cache size is set for 41,000 and there are 35,574 objects defined in ovwdb, just as it was before the upgrade. I've always heard conflicting stories about the "at least 10
Author: Stephen Hochstetler <shochste AT us.ibm DOT com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:42:56 -0600
Channing, It sounds like you are experienced...but I just want to verify how you verifiied the cache.. did you look in your ovsuf file or in the ovwdb.lrf ....or at the line on a ps -ef command to se
Author: Jane Curry <jane.curry AT skills-1st.co DOT uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:33:20 +0000
Yup - I've seen the same thing. Again an upgrade from 7.1.3 FP1 to 7.1.4 on AIX 5.1. No other changes made. I also have Switch Analyzer installed and that often fails to come up with the other daemon
Author: "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:59:43 -0600
I see higher OVWDB CPU consumption on 7.1.4 than I did on 7.1.3 --Original Message-- From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com]On Behalf Of Jane Curry Sent:
Author: "Hill, Channing" <CHill AT bbandt DOT com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:42 -0500
I got the cache size from ps -ef | grep ovwdb. The active entry in ovsuf has 41000 as well. I did note an extra item appended to the line though....... 7.1.4 has.... 0:ovwdb:/usr/OV/bin/ovwdb:OVs_YES
Author: "Hill, Channing" <CHill AT bbandt DOT com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:27:35 -0500
Never mind on the question about the "ovwdb_FFDC:5" being added to the ovwdb entry in ovsuf. I just found out via the release notes, page 8, that FFDC entries is for extensive tracing of Netview daem
Author: "Oliver Bruchhaeuser" <oliver.bruchhaeuser AT de.ibm DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:01:23 +0100
Channing, yes you are right. Autotrace slow down ovtopmd start and ovtopofix. There is a test fix (IY50663)available from support. Of course you can also disable Autotrace (see the Release Notes how
Author: Jane Curry <jane.curry AT skills-1st.co DOT uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:59:55 +0000
Does anyone have any more info about the atctl command used to control the NetView First Failure Data Capture (FFDC) tracing facility? I have seen a couple of reference to atctl on the tme10 forum al
Author: "Jeffrey G. Fitzwater" <jfitz AT princeton DOT edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:07 -0500
I might note that 7.1.4 also adds many DATA COLLECTIONs for interface and RMON stats that are in the COLLECTING state by default. This can cause increased CPU usage depending on how many devices are
Author: "Oliver Bruchhaeuser" <oliver.bruchhaeuser AT de.ibm DOT com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:24:07 +0100
Jane, I fear this isn't really interesting for the "normal" NetView user. The created Autotrace packages are in binary format and you need a special viewer and a code database for the traced product
Author: Jane Curry <jane.curry AT skills-1st.co DOT uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:44:16 +0000
Many thanks, Oliver, Does this mean that the nettl subsystem is now redundant? It still seems to run as ever, although I almost never had cause to use it. Cheers, Jane Jane, I fear this isn't really
Author: "Oliver Bruchhaeuser" <oliver.bruchhaeuser AT de.ibm DOT com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:53:50 +0100
Jane, this are two complete different things. The Autotrace is more like a (source) code trace. You (no, not you ;-) see what code has been executed during the snapshoot ... with FDDC before the core