RE: Physical Logging performance

Ruediger 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 Keith -----Original Message----- From: R'diger M'hl [mailto:ruediger.maehl@web.de] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 08:32 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Physical Logging performance Good morning everybody, some time ago, I found the tip, that the pages/io should be less than the bufsize (around 75%). Is that true? I had a physical bufsize of 16 and always a pages/io of around 15.7 so I increased the bufsize to now 32, but it still shows a high number. Do I need to increase even more? You find the top lines of onstat -l down below. Many regards, Ruediger ----- onstat -l Physical Logging Buffer bufused bufsize numpages numwrits pages/io P-1 1 32 933386 29357 31.79 phybegin physize phypos phyused %used 100107 10000 9796 353 3.53 Logical Logging Buffer bufused bufsize numrecs numpages numwrits recs/pages pages/io L-2 0 32 203070 13955 6280 14.6 2.2 Subsystem numrecs Log Space used OLDRSAM 203070 17534364 ********************************************************************************** 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