Re: Are you using sqlrm?

Irwin Goldstein (irwin@objectsoft.com) wrote: : elderbox@teleport.com (John Wells) writes: : > <snip> : > Here's the problem. Yesterday we turned on our Informix system and told : > everyone to log in. The processor was immediately filled up. We : > discovered that each user has a copy of sqlrm running (we expected : > that), but what we didn't expect was that each sqlrm gets about 2.5% of : > the processor time. And they never go away. We have about a hundred : > users of our HP9000/hpux system. If fifty people log and take 2.5% of : > the cpu time, guess what happens to the other fifty people. : > : > Is anyone else using this product, sqlrm? What are your experiences? : There is a bug with sqlrm using shared memory connections that causes what you : have described above. I ran in to this recently at a client's site. The good news : is that there is a work around! Instead of using a shared memory connection, : configure a "local loop back" socket connection to the server. You can make : this the primary connection, or make it an alias and set the INFORMIXSERVER enviornment : variable to the alias which refers to the socket connection. Socket connections are : a little slower than shared memory, but the sqlrm problem goes away -- an idle sqlrm : will be truly idle! The other hidden thing goind on here is that the engine seems : to consume much more cpu time when talking to an sqlrm through a shared memory connection. : Switching to a socket connection will solve this problem as well! : HTH, : Irwin I am also running into the same problem with sqlrm when using Accell. I will try the local loopback setup. Additionally though, I now have a big wait each time a user starts up a new Accell application or screen (the first time). After the first time it runs just about like it did under OnLine 5.02. Any suggestions? TIA Andrew Sawley Therapy Associates Inc.