onperf

I am curious to know if anuybody uses onperf and what your opinions on it are. TIA, Mike Talbot

I use it occassionally. It works OK but it will only display a certain number of data points (I think 20?) and with 20 CPU VPs, 300 chunks, 24 physical CPUs, etc I cannot use it to monitor meaningful subset of my systems. I do use the xtree portion often though. Art S. Kagel Michael Talbot wrote: > > I am curious to know if anuybody uses onperf and what your opinions on it > are. > > TIA, > Mike Talbot

In article <3767EFEA.85D200B0@bloomberg.net>, Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.net> writes >I use it occassionally. It works OK but it will only display a certain >number of data points (I think 20?) and with 20 CPU VPs, 300 chunks, >24 physical CPUs, etc I cannot use it to monitor meaningful subset of >my systems. I do use the xtree portion often though. > >Art S. Kagel > >Michael Talbot wrote: >> >> I am curious to know if anuybody uses onperf and what your opinions on it >> are. >> >> TIA, >> Mike Talbot I have played with it for a while...even managed to crash it once! It seems to give all the stats the onstat does but in a graphical form i.e. performance graphs. xtree is neat to show threads actually running in parallel (with rows processed counts) in demos to show online really is parallel (impressed my boss no end) but you can't see what each thread is actually accessing i.e. which tables/indexes it is using..so you can't performance tuning using xtree. -- David Williams