RE: Physical Logging performance

R'diger 200,000 (at 4K page size) Keith -> -----Original Message----- -> From: R'diger M'hl [mailto:ruediger.maehl@web.de] -> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 8:30 AM -> To: informix-list@iiug.org -> Subject: RE: Physical Logging performance -> -> -> "Simmons, Keith" <keith.simmons@office2office.biz> wrote: -> -> > Yes, this is something I have tried to achieve, it tends to reduce -> > disk I/O to the Physical Log and make the I/O more efficient. I'm -> > currently running a PHYSBUFF of 512 (just so you don't get -> afraid of -> > big numbers!). The same can be applied to the LOGBUFF parameter as -> > well -> -> Thanks, Keith. -> -> Yes, I was afraid of big numbers, because the Admin Guide speaks -> of 32 for normal and 64 for heavy workload. You have perhaps also -> defined a high number of buffers? -> -> Ruediger -> ********************************************************************************** This message is sent in strict confidence for the addressee only. It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorised recipients are requested to preserve this confidentiality and to advise the sender immediately of any error in transmission. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses, however we cannot guarantee that this message is free from such problems. ********************************************************************************** sending to informix-list