Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files
2001-02-14 11:14:49
After performing the command _q db f=d_ you will see a screen like this:
Available Space (MB): 12,000
Assigned Capacity (MB): 12,000
Maximum Extension (MB): 0
Maximum Reduction (MB): 2,684
Page Size (bytes): 4,096
Total Usable Pages: 3,072,000
Used Pages: 2,377,010
Pct Util: 77.4
Max. Pct Util: 77.6
Physical Volumes: 12
Buffer Pool Pages: 32,768
Total Buffer Requests: 98,257,473
Cache Hit Pct.: 97.76
Cache Wait Pct.: 0.00
Backup in Progress?: No
Type of Backup In Progress:
Incrementals Since Last Full: 0
Changed Since Last Backup (MB): 191.43
Percentage Changed: 2.06
Last Complete Backup Date/Time: 02/14/01 07:01:06
Look at _Cache Hit Pct._ - it should be as high as possible, we were told 98% or
better 99%.
If it's too low you should increase the buffer pool.
Reinhold Wagner, Zeuna Staerker GmbH & Co. KG
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Diana J.Cline
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, David Longo
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files,
Reinhold Wagner <=
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Thomas Denier
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, George Lesho
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Richard Sims
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Richard Sims
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Prather, Wanda
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Jeff Connor
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF.
- Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files, bbullock
|
|
|