Dynamically allocated locks

Posted in 2005

Topics: Server Administration, Logging & Checkpoints

Scott Bernard — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:10:56 — source: IIUG Forums & Mailing Lists

A disclaimer.....I am a Unix Sysadmin covering for the DBA who is out on medical leave. Long time lurker, first time poster. Two times in past few months I've noticed a message regarding dynamically allocated locks in the online log My question is: Is this an indication of an impending problem, or just something that needs to be monitored? 09:02:56 dynamically allocated 2000 locks 09:02:57 dynamically allocated 4000 locks 09:06:26 Fuzzy Checkpoint Completed: duration was 12 seconds, 236 buffers not flushed. Background info. Informix Dynamic Server 2000 Version 9.21.UC2. I've tried to cheat and read the manual.... so far my understanding is the engine is running out of locks so it allocates more. It can do this up to 13 or 14 times. I was able to find out what the engine is doing and why, but I still don't know if this indicates a problem. Check point times and response times seem to be normal. Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge. W. Scott Bernard Unix System Administrator City of Chula Vista (619) 585-5648 Fax (619) 476-5399 sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us

↪ replying to Scott Bernard

ART KAGEL, BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEXIN — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:59:46 — source: IIUG Forums & Mailing Lists

Not an immediate problem. However, it does indicate that the initial number of locks should be increased. There is a delay to whatever session required the additional locks so it's not something you want to bank on. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bernard <sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> At: 6/27 15:51 A disclaimer.....I am a Unix Sysadmin covering for the DBA who is out on medical leave. Long time lurker, first time poster. Two times in past few months I've noticed a message regarding dynamically allocated locks in the online log My question is: Is this an indication of an impending problem, or just something that needs to be monitored? 09:02:56 dynamically allocated 2000 locks 09:02:57 dynamically allocated 4000 locks 09:06:26 Fuzzy Checkpoint Completed: duration was 12 seconds, 236 buffers not flushed. Background info. Informix Dynamic Server 2000 Version 9.21.UC2. I've tried to cheat and read the manual.... so far my understanding is the engine is running out of locks so it allocates more. It can do this up to 13 or 14 times. I was able to find out what the engine is doing and why, but I still don't know if this indicates a problem. Check point times and response times seem to be normal. Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge. W. Scott Bernard Unix System Administrator City of Chula Vista (619) 585-5648 Fax (619) 476-5399 sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us

↪ replying to Scott Bernard

Scott Bernard — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:49:11 — source: IIUG Forums & Mailing Lists

Subject: RE: Dynamically allocated locks [5272] Thank you all for sharing your knowledge, it is much appreciated! Scott -----Original Message----- From: ART KAGEL, BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEXIN [mailto:KAGEL@bloomberg.net] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:53 PM To: sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Subject: Re: Dynamically allocated locks [5272] Not an immediate problem. However, it does indicate that the initial number of locks should be increased. There is a delay to whatever session required the additional locks so it's not something you want to bank on. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bernard <sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> At: 6/27 15:51 A disclaimer.....I am a Unix Sysadmin covering for the DBA who is out on medical leave. Long time lurker, first time poster. Two times in past few months I've noticed a message regarding dynamically allocated locks in the online log My question is: Is this an indication of an impending problem, or just something that needs to be monitored? 09:02:56 dynamically allocated 2000 locks 09:02:57 dynamically allocated 4000 locks 09:06:26 Fuzzy Checkpoint Completed: duration was 12 seconds, 236 buffers not flushed. Background info. Informix Dynamic Server 2000 Version 9.21.UC2. I've tried to cheat and read the manual.... so far my understanding is the engine is running out of locks so it allocates more. It can do this up to 13 or 14 times. I was able to find out what the engine is doing and why, but I still don't know if this indicates a problem. Check point times and response times seem to be normal. Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge. W. Scott Bernard Unix System Administrator City of Chula Vista (619) 585-5648 Fax (619) 476-5399 sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us

↪ replying to ART KAGEL, BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEXIN

Support Informix — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:58:19 — source: IIUG Forums & Mailing Lists

Almost no problem. Just the initial allocated number of locks is to small, maybe only just for that day. However, I've seen it before on a developping system, and some programmer was trying to update a whole table with row locking, he just forgot to lock the table exclusive for his operation. Instead of one lock he consumed then thousands locks. Yves -----Original Message----- From: nobody@ace.iiug.org [mailto:nobody@ace.iiug.org] Sent: 27 June 2005 22:00 To: ids@iiug.org Subject: Re: Dynamically allocated locks [5275] Not an immediate problem. However, it does indicate that the initial number of locks should be increased. There is a delay to whatever session required the additional locks so it's not something you want to bank on. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bernard <sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> At: 6/27 15:51 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C57BA6.19BAFE80 Content-Type: text/html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12"> <TITLE>RE: Dynamically allocated locks [5275] </TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Almost no problem. Just the initial allocated number of locks is to small, maybe only just for that day. However, I've seen it before on a developping system, and some programmer was trying to update a whole table with row locking, he just forgot to lock the table exclusive for his operation. Instead of one lock he consumed then thousands locks. Yves -----Original Message----- From: nobody@ace.iiug.org [<A HREF="mailto:nobody@ace.iiug.org">mailto:nobody@ace.iiug.org</A>] Sent: 27 June 2005 22:00 To: ids@iiug.org Subject: Re: Dynamically allocated locks [5275] Not an immediate problem.  However, it does indicate that the initial number of locks should be increased.  There is a delay to whatever session required the additional locks so it's not something you want to bank on. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bernard  <sbernard@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> At:  6/27 15:51 </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C57BA6.19BAFE80--

Glossary

checkpoint