Re: NETTYPE NET/CPU

On 15 Sep, 05:06, mohitanch...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 12, 11:59 am, "Art S. Kagel" <art.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 1:28 pm, mohitanch...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Aug 9, 6:50 am, "Art S. Kagel" <art.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 8, 8:57 pm, mohitanch...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Version: IDS 10 > > > > > I'll leave you mostly with Jonathan's entries and just add a bit as > > > > well. For a full explanation of why to use CPU VPs versus NET VPs for > > > > listeners, see my entry on the subject in the fullInformixFAQ (not > > > > Jonathan's CDI FAQ) - link on the IIUG WEB site (www.iiug.org). > > > > > See below: > > > > > > I am trying to understandNETTYPEbetter so that we can configure our > > > > > connections appropriately and perhaps make it more efficient. My > > > > > questions is: > > > > > > 1. Is VP Class NET synonymous to OS's CPU and Vp Class CPU synonymous > > > > > to oninit. > > > > > 2. After reading about Vp Class my understanding is that ipcshm > > > > > protocol should be configured for CPU vp class. Is that correct ? > > > > > What's the benefit of using one over other > > > > > The CPU VP has work to do so it can only poll the ports for new > > > > connections and for new requests from existing connections when it's > > > > waiting for something to happen. That makes it less than ideal for > > > > network connections, but is a plus for shared memory connections > > > > because a NET VP has to actively poll a shared memory connection which > > > > burns CPU time and OS Kernel time reducing the available cycles for > > > > productive work. Because CPU VPs can only poll periodically all CPU > > > > VPs should be set up with shared memory poll threads for optimal > > > > responsiveness. > > > > > > 3. And should soctcp protocol be configured for NET vp class. Is that > > > > > correct ? What's the benefit of using one over other > > > > > 4. Also, when I do onstat -g glo I see lot of cpu type virtual > > > > > processors having total of more than 100. On IBM's website they > > > > > recommend adding one more cpu if total is more than 100, but our > > > > > application seems to be fine. So I am little bit confused about this > > > > > too. > > > > > Art S. Kagel > > > > IBM documentation says that in multiprocess system NUMCPUVPS should > > > not exceed number of CPUs on the system. Now ifnettypeis configured > > > for both NET and CPU class then total oninit process will be more than > > > NUMCPUVPS, is that ok. for eg: if number of physical CPUs are 10 and > > > NUMCPUVP is set to 8, andNETTYPEof type NET for soctcp is set to 10 > > > listner threads then total oninit will be 18, which is more than total > > > number of physical CPUs. Is that ok.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > First, only CPU VPs count in the recommendation in the manuals to not > > exceed the number of CPU cores less one. Second, that recommendation > > was written in the days of 25-50MHZ processors. TheInformixuser > > community started experimenting with configuring the same number of > > CPU VPs as cores and then with configuring two or more CPU VPs per > > core at about the time that processor speed hit 400 MHZ. In those > > experiments, reported here in CDI, it was determined that a 450MHZ > > processor from most vendors (and 750MHZ from Intel) would continue to > > show improved IDS server performance when NUMCPUVPS exceeded the > > number of physical CPU cores up until there were two per core. So if > > you have 5 dual core processors (or 10 cores) you can successfully run > > with NUMCPUVP or VPCLASS .. CPU set to 20. Lately IB that with > > processors in the multi-GHZ range that you can go even further and run > > 3 or more CPU VPs per core. > > > Test it. It's the only way to know for sure on your equipment with > > your data. > > > Art S. Kagel > > But whenNETTYPEis set to NET it spawns different set of oninit, > which is additional set of oninit as compared to the one started by > informix for NUMCPUVPS. So why is there a separate parameter NUMCPUVPS > and why there is no such parameter for NET, something like NUMNETVPS. > I can feel there is some difference for not having something like > this, but I am not exactly sure.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not just the number of NET VPS but also - the type (soc,tli,ipx) - the initial number of connections that memory should be allocated for etc.

david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not > just the number of NET VPS but also > > - the type (soc,tli,ipx) Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell SPX/IPX protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for IPC). -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0914 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ publictimestamp.org/ptb/PTB-1349 ripemd320 2007-09-21 03:00:03 B16A0584F61720A0B8054AFA3861CD77A48DF41115E15A270CFE90AB8DB49D21C6FD12 45BFEB6E4

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > >> There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not >> just the number of NET VPS but also >> >> - the type (soc,tli,ipx) > > > Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell SPX/IPX > protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for IPC). > ipcstr toooo.

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >> There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not >> just the number of NET VPS but also >> >> - the type (soc,tli,ipx) > > Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell SPX/IPX > protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for IPC). > Never saw it being used in Informix... I remember the name from my Novell usage in the past. Regards. -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

TBP (The Big Potato) wrote: > Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >> >>> There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not >>> just the number of NET VPS but also >>> >>> - the type (soc,tli,ipx) >> >> >> Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell SPX/IPX >> protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for IPC). >> > ipcstr toooo. What does that mean, please? I know of people using ipcstr connections; I wasn't asking about that. Do you mean "Not only do I use the SPX/IPX connections but also the IPCSTR connections too"? Or do you mean "Does anyone use the ipcstr connections?"? -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0914 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ publictimestamp.org/ptb/PTB-1357 whirlpool2 2007-09-22 03:00:04 3844B5CF5EE618158AC5132655743249B9759FB86FB57DB25C4D4C7A0DF193661E7E1C E04B7BD89398097EAC95BC9BA69000682CBD4298A3548221EB577E46E

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > TBP (The Big Potato) wrote: > >> Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> >>> david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >>> >>>> There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not >>>> just the number of NET VPS but also >>>> >>>> - the type (soc,tli,ipx) >>> >>> >>> >>> Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell >>> SPX/IPX protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for >>> IPC). >>> >> ipcstr toooo. > > > What does that mean, please? I know of people using ipcstr connections; > I wasn't asking about that. Do you mean "Not only do I use the SPX/IPX > connections but also the IPCSTR connections too"? Or do you mean "Does > anyone use the ipcstr connections?"? > If a list of protocols supported are being put forward, then that list should be complete.

TBP (The Big Potato) wrote: > Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> TBP (The Big Potato) wrote: >>> Jonathan Leffler wrote: >>>> david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is but it is called NETTYPE because you have to configure not >>>>> just the number of NET VPS but also >>>>> >>>>> - the type (soc,tli,ipx) >>>> >>>> Does anyone actually use an IPX connection? That's the Novell >>>> SPX/IPX protocol, just in case you're wondering (and not a typo for >>>> IPC). > > If a list of protocols supported are being put forward, then that list > should be complete. Aaah! I see. If the question was putting forward a list of protocols, then yes, it should be complete. However, I changed the subject when I asked my question, and I've changed it again now, and the list of protocols (just one) is complete. The question I am asking is specifically about one protocol: the SPX/IPX protocol. Does anyone you know use the SPX/IPX protocol to connect to IDS? (If so, which platform, client version (CSDK), server version.) The sub-text is - would anyone notice if it (SPX/IPX support) vanished. -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0914 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ publictimestamp.org/ptb/PTB-1364 tiger 2007-09-23 00:00:04 BAA91975D1E14C49E66C786BE243276C4FB75D98B1C05014

Jonathan Leffler said: > would anyone notice if it (SPX/IPX support) vanished. Someone somewhere would. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo "Cluster in my trousers" -- Guy Bowerman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.