Re: Are you using sqlrm?

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