Re: onconfig recommendations

mosserp@wellsfargo.com wrote: >> mosserp@wellsfargo.com wrote: >> >>>>> RESIDENT 0 # Forced residency flag>>>>> >>>>> >>>> (Yes = 1, No = >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Don't know HP model numbers, but it this is a PA-RISC machine, you >>>> almost have to set RESIDENT to -1 to prevent poor performance >>>> due to the >>>> architectures restrictions of only four active shared >>>> >> memory segments >> >>>> per process. On HP PA-RISC platforms, besides marking all >>>> shared memory >>>> lockable, it combines the 'resident' segment with the initial >>>> 'virtual' >>>> segment to reduce the count. VERY important on PA-RISC if >>>> you are using >>>> shared memory connections. On Itanium machines, no problem, >>>> though I'd >>>> still recommend using RESIDENT 1 or -1 to prevent the >>>> >> shared segments >> >>>> from swapping. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 0) >>>>> NETTYPE soctcp,4,150,NET>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The above line is no-op with no TCP connection names in >>>> DBSERVERNAME or>>>> DBSERVERALIASES. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> NETTYPE ipcshm,1,25,NET>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's very bad for performance and responsiveness to have >>>> shared memory >>>> poll threads in NET VPs. It wastes CPU cycles for no reason. >>>> Configure >>>> this in CPU VPs and as many as there are NUMCPUVPs (see below >>>> on that). >>>> >>>> >>> For HPUX, I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Art. When you >>> configure multiple shared memory poll threads on HPUX, you >>> >> will get that >> >>> many separate Message-type memory segments, very quickly >>> >> eating into / >> >>> exceeding that optimal maximum of 4 segments. I do >>> >> wholeheartedly agree >> >>> on assigning ipcshm connections to CPU, though. >>> >>> >> Hey Paul, >> >> You're the platform expert! Though I had thought that the message >> segments were less of a problem than the virtual segments since each >> listener only attaches to one of those segments. Good to know. >> >> Art S. Kagel >> Oninit >> >> > > However, if Mark is correct below, then it looks like we are both a bit > behind in HPUX peculiarities. :-O > > >> Mark Jamison [majp51@yahoo.com] wrote: >> > > Unless you are still on HP-UX 10.00 the 4 segments is no longer a worry. > > HP-UX 11.0 the cutoff on performance is around 11 segments, and I > haven't tested beyond 11.0 Except that my understanding was that this wasn't an HP/UX issue but a problem in the design of the PA-RISC processor. HP was promissing to fix it several years ago in the "next release of the processor" but they ended up going Itanium instead and I don't know if they ever updated the processor design or not. One would have to get HP to comment on that. Art S. Kagel oninit =========================================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.oninit.com/home/disclaimer.php ===========================================================================================