RE: DBA probems

On your INFORMIXTMP, we have multiple instances on an SVR4 UNIX and the total space used is less than 1000 bytes. There are several zero-byte files with VP.instancename.0100a (or other number string). It appears these are created when an instance is started. I think you said you were running AIX, which is quite different, so possibly INFORMIXTMP on AIX consumes more space. But if its similar to what ours look like, your sys adm definitely has a problem if < 1000 bytes is filling his root file system. HTH, if not, look for the hit man. > ---------- > From: Vic Glass[SMTP:icc@injersey.infi.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 4:58 AM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: DBA probems > > Mukund, > > I'm afraid that Vic and Obnoxio are not quite giving you the whole story > about about the allocation, use and depletion of table space. Vic, who > is not related to me, indicates that more space will automatically be > allocated, the size of which is guided by the "next extent" > specification for the table. Obnoxio, indicates that you need to get > more disk (from your UNIX administrator), and add it, in the form of a > "chunk", to the table space. He also indicates that you should read the > manual, and there is some truth to this. However, I do not believe that > you should be executed for allegedly not reading the manual. Here's the > scoop. > > 1. Before doing anything, you should execute the oncheck command to > determine how many chunks are assigned to the table space in question, > and how many pages are allocated, used and free in each of those chunks. > The command line is: oncheck -pe > out, where out is a file name of your > choice that will hold the output of the oncheck command. If in fact > there is only one chunk assigned to the table space, and and the numbers > are as you specified, then it is difficult to tell how close you are to > empty. specifically, it is difficult to tell how much of the *last* > extent allocated is used up. For example, if the initial extent size is > 500,000 Kb, and the next extent is 100,000 Kb, then you will have > anywhere from 0 to 100,000 Kb left in that extent. Whenever an extent is > allocated, the pages of that extent are designated "used", whether or > not they have data in them or not. > > If you have more than one chunk allocated to the table space and the > other chunks have sufficient space, you may be fine. > > 2. If indeed you have only one chunk assigned to the table space and it > appears to be running on empty, then you should determine if you have > unallocated disk available. If so, you can add some of this disk to the > table space in the form of a chunk. You can do this via the onmonitor > administrative utility. If you do not have any disk available, you'll > need to contact the UNIX system administrator to get some. When he > supplies the disk, he will give you a device name, something like > /dev/xxxxxx, and you will use this device name in the onmonitor when you > add the chunk. > > 3. It would be a good idea to size your database tables if you haven't > already. Do this in conjunction with input from people who know your > application intimately. > > "Space, the final frontier" > > Oh, try executing onstat -d, this give a nice summary of disk > allocation. > > Also (to anyone one else is has read this thing), I can still use some > input about my question on INFORMIXTMP. The system administrator is > getting real retentive and stubborn, and now insists he cannot live with > the existence of the /INFORMIXTMP directory. He is suggesting that I use > a symbolic link instead, so that the damn thing is located in another > file system. Any comments other than the need to hire a hit man? > > > > Mukund Shevkar wrote: > > > Hi this is mukund > > > > My online tables are getting full e.g. > > Pages allocated = 36440 and pages used = 36271 > > Tell me how i can allocate more pages(next size ?) before it gets > > full ? > > > > Regards > > > > Thanks > > > > Mukund > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >

In article <7eidlu$mnl$1@news.xmission.com>, Rick Rabe <RRABE@PROMUS.com> writes > >On your INFORMIXTMP, we have multiple instances on an SVR4 UNIX and the >total space used is less than 1000 bytes. There are several zero-byte files >with VP.instancename.0100a (or other number string). It appears these are >created when an instance is started. I think you said you were running AIX, >which is quite different, so possibly INFORMIXTMP on AIX consumes more >space. But if its similar to what ours look like, your sys adm definitely >has a problem if < 1000 bytes is filling his root file system. > It contains:- -r--r--r-- 1 root informix 40 .inf.srv_agent -rw-rw---- 1 root informix 25 .infxdirs prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0300a prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0400a prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0500a prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.1000a prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.1100a I only have one instance running called livesrv. The VP.livesrv... files are pipes which I assume are for internal communication within online. The .inf.srv_agent I probably something to do with the server agent used by IECC (Informix Enterprise Command Centre), to Windows GUI tool used to Admin Online from Windows. .infxdirs contains a list of directories where Informix has been installed on the machine.. The directory it self is only 1K in size:- drwxrwxrwt 2 root informix 1024 INFORMIXTMP I know admins generally hate to have anything on the root partition but informix needs it. I imagine using a link would be a) Unsupported b) Probably lost informix every rebuilt the directory. I would tell the admin that it is needed and there will be no system without it! -- David Williams

David, Thanks for the input. I'm the originator of the INFORMIXTMP question. Suggest in the future you respond to posts so that we know what post you are responding to. somehow you've responded to several posts without becoming part of the thread of those posts (?????). A post note about my experience with INFORMIXTMP. We contacted informix and asked about the sup portability of a /INFORMIXTMP as a symbolic link instead of an actual directory. They will support it, we've implemented it, it works. The major requirement for /INFORMIXTMP is that is *always* be there for the engine. I think the reason Informix wants it under root is that the root file system is the *only* file system that cannot be unmounted. The only two, absolute requirements for using a symbolic link for /INFORMIXTMP is (1) that it not reside in a file system that will be unmounted, and (2) that no user can write to the directory, i.e. has permission to remove or modify the files there. David Williams wrote: > In article <7eidlu$mnl$1@news.xmission.com>, Rick Rabe > <RRABE@PROMUS.com> writes > > > >On your INFORMIXTMP, we have multiple instances on an SVR4 UNIX and the > >total space used is less than 1000 bytes. There are several zero-byte files > >with VP.instancename.0100a (or other number string). It appears these are > >created when an instance is started. I think you said you were running AIX, > >which is quite different, so possibly INFORMIXTMP on AIX consumes more > >space. But if its similar to what ours look like, your sys adm definitely > >has a problem if < 1000 bytes is filling his root file system. > > > > It contains:- > > -r--r--r-- 1 root informix 40 .inf.srv_agent > -rw-rw---- 1 root informix 25 .infxdirs > prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0300a > prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0400a > prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.0500a > prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.1000a > prw-rw-r-- 1 root informix 0 VP.livesrv.1100a > > I only have one instance running called livesrv. The VP.livesrv... > files are pipes which I assume are for internal communication within > online. > > The .inf.srv_agent I probably something to do with the server agent > used by IECC (Informix Enterprise Command Centre), to Windows GUI tool > used to Admin Online from Windows. > > .infxdirs contains a list of directories where Informix has been > installed on the machine.. > > The directory it self is only 1K in size:- > > drwxrwxrwt 2 root informix 1024 INFORMIXTMP > > I know admins generally hate to have anything on the root partition > but informix needs it. I imagine using a link would be > > a) Unsupported > b) Probably lost informix every rebuilt the directory. > > I would tell the admin that it is needed and there will be no system > without it! > > -- > David Williams