RE: Onmode -F . . . oops!

Thanks for being the bearer of good news. . . . Hopefully not the same version . . . 8-) -----Original Message----- From: William Rice [mailto:ricew@operamail.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:45 AM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: RE: Onmode -F . . . oops! I have seen 9.21 crash during an onmode -F. I even have the assert to prove it ;) Will In article <95p4dt$mt7$1@news.xmission.com>, John Carlson <John_Carlson@whsmithusa.com> wrote: > > That's my thought too. IDS 9.21 will be online in a week or so (test mode). > > -----Original Message----- > From: mars1972@my-deja.com [mailto:mars1972@my-deja.com] > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:44 PM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: RE: Onmode -F . . . oops! > > I just wouldn't run onmode -F until you get the database upgraded. I'd > guess that you're having problems with differences in the way the OS > handles the onmode -F. It really isn't critical that you run onmode -F > anyway, as sooner or later the memory will be reclaimed by the engine > anyway unless you have some process that grabs huge amounts of memory > and then releases it, but never really quits (some sort of daemon > process, perhaps). onmode -F merely forces it to happen right now. > > In article <95mlal$qkb$1@news.xmission.com>, > John Carlson <John_Carlson@whsmithusa.com> wrote: > > > > Actually, three AF files were created. The assert fail happened on a > very > > innocent SELECT statement. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Williams [mailto:djw@smooth1.demon.co.uk] > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 9:49 AM > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: Re: Onmode -F . . . oops! > > > > In article <959q5h$d6v$1@news.xmission.com>, John Carlson > > <John_Carlson@whsmithusa.com> writes > > > > > >IDS: 7.30.uc7 -- soon to be 9.21 (32-bit HP 11.0) > > >OS: HPUX 11.0 -- processors are 64-bit > > > > > >Onmode -F is a wonderful tool to free up unused memory, especially if > the > > >reason for the allocated memory is transitory. Under HP 10.20, I've > never > > >had a problems with it. Until now . . . . > > > > > >I noticed a few extra memory segments allocated just today. Without > much > > >worry, I executed an onmode -F and then watched my (production) > engine drop > > >like a rock. As we haven't had many problems on HPUX 10.20, and > we've been > > >live on this configuration for (almost) three days, I'm not quite > ready to > > >believe that another issue is at stake here. I know that we're > running a > > HP > > >10.20 port on a HP11.0 OS; this situation will change within 6-8 > weeks. I > > >guess my questions are these: > > > > > >* Are problems with onmode -F on HPUX 11.0 a known issue? Like > my > > >sysadmin said, it would be bad to not have a way to clean up unused > memory. > > > > Was an af file produced? What what the stack trace for the thread > > which crashed? > > > > >* Is this an issue with a HPUX 10.20 binary on a HP 11.0 OS? > > >* Are there any other known gotchas out there with a 'mismatch' > in app > > >port level and OS level? > > >* Are there any known issues with running a 32-bit engine on a > 64-bit > > >OS? > > > > > >Thought I had this nailed down a while back . . . thought I'd better > > >double-check with others who might be doing the same thing. > > > > > >Thanks in advance! > > > > > >John Carlson > > >Informix Database Administrator > > >EDS - WHSmith USA > > >3200 Windy Hill Road, Suite 1500 West > > >Atlanta, GA 30330 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Williams > > > > -- > # unrm / > ksh: unrm: not found > # man cpio > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/