Degraded performance of Replication

Posted in 2004

Topics: Performance & Tuning, Platform-Specific Issues

Link, David A. — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:47:39 -0600 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have a replicated table on 2 IBM P680's running AIX 4.3.3 and Informix 9.30.UC2. In our tests we have pushed through as many as 1600 tx/sec, which is great. We are planning on upgrading to AIX 5.2 and Informix 9.40UF3. We are only able to get 1300 tx/sec on the same class of servers. I would have thought that with the OLTP improvements in 9.40 that we would have gotten better performance. =20 The only thing we have changed is that we narrowed the table. We are going to retest with the original table but I thought I would see if anyone would have have any suggestions? Just looking at the incoming OLTP transactions the newer version seems to run much better. I am just wondering what we could be missing. =20 Thanks for any suggestions in advance. =20 David Link =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1> We have a replicated table on 2 IBM P680’s = running AIX 4.3.3 and Informix = 9.30.UC2. In our tests we have pushed through as many as 1600 = tx/sec, which is great. We are planning on upgrading to AIX 5.2 and = Informix 9.40UF3. We are only able to get 1300 tx/sec on the same class = of servers. I would have thought that with the OLTP improvements = in 9.40 that we would have gotten better performance.   The only thing we have changed is that we narrowed = the table. We are going to retest with the original table but I thought I = would see if anyone would have have any suggestions? Just looking at the incoming OLTP transactions the = newer version seems to run much better. I am just wondering what we could be = missing.   Thanks for any suggestions in = advance.   David Link   </div> </body> </html> =00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373-- sending to informix-list

↪ replying to Link, David A.

Madison Pruet — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:49:26 GMT — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

Check to see if the target tends to have transactions in the receive queue when running under stress. If you are seeing increased performance in basic transactions and data is not getting to the target quickly enough, then you run the risk of spooling the queue to disk, which would impact performance. "Link, David A." <DALink@west.com> wrote in message news:bum1bo$cg3$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > We have a replicated table on 2 IBM P680's running AIX 4.3.3 and > Informix 9.30.UC2. > > In our tests we have pushed through as many as 1600 tx/sec, which is > great. > > We are planning on upgrading to AIX 5.2 and Informix 9.40UF3. > > We are only able to get 1300 tx/sec on the same class of servers. > > I would have thought that with the OLTP improvements in 9.40 that we > would have gotten better performance. > > =20 > > The only thing we have changed is that we narrowed the table. We are > going to retest with the original table but I thought I would see if > anyone would have have any suggestions? > > Just looking at the incoming OLTP transactions the newer version seems > to run much better. I am just wondering what we could be missing. > > =20 > > Thanks for any suggestions in advance. > > =20 > > David Link > > =20 > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <html> > > <head> > <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Dus-ascii"> > <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > <style> >  > </style> > > </head> > > <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> > > <div class=3DSection1> > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We have a replicated table on 2 IBM P680’s = > running AIX > 4.3.3 and style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Informix face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> = > 9.30.UC2. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>In our tests we have pushed through as many as 1600 = > tx/sec, > which is great. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We are planning on upgrading to AIX 5.2 and = > size=3D2 face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Informix size=3D2 face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> 9.40UF3. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We are only able to get 1300 tx/sec on the same class = > of > servers. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>I would have thought that with the OLTP improvements = > in 9.40 > that we would have gotten better performance. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>The only thing we have changed is that we narrowed = > the > table. We are going to retest with the original table but I thought I = > would see > if anyone would have have any suggestions? > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Just looking at the incoming OLTP transactions the = > newer > version seems to run much better. I am just wondering what we could be = > missing. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Thanks for any suggestions in = > advance. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>David Link > > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'>  > > </div> > > </body> > > </html> > =00 > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373-- > sending to informix-list

↪ replying to Link, David A.

Obnoxio The Clown — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:04:04 +0000 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

Link, David A. wrote: > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Thanks for any suggestions in advance. Here's a suggestion: don't post HTML. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <html> > > <head> > <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Dus-ascii"> > <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > <style> >  > </style> > > </head> > > <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> > > <div class=3DSection1> > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We have a replicated table on 2 IBM P680’s = > running AIX > 4.3.3 and style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Informix face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> = > 9.30.UC2. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>In our tests we have pushed through as many as 1600 = > tx/sec, > which is great. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We are planning on upgrading to AIX 5.2 and = > size=3D2 face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Informix size=3D2 face=3DArial> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> 9.40UF3. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>We are only able to get 1300 tx/sec on the same class = > of > servers. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>I would have thought that with the OLTP improvements = > in 9.40 > that we would have gotten better performance. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>The only thing we have changed is that we narrowed = > the > table. We are going to retest with the original table but I thought I = > would see > if anyone would have have any suggestions? > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Just looking at the incoming OLTP transactions the = > newer > version seems to run much better. I am just wondering what we could be = > missing. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Thanks for any suggestions in = > advance. > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>  > > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>David Link > > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'>  > > </div> > > </body> > > </html> > =00 > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3E025.22CC7373-- > sending to informix-list -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche