spin locks

This is the output of onstat g spi . What is po_lock below? Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more info ? This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up 09:04:41 --733952 Kbytes Spin locks with waits: Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global

On 20/09/13 21:56, BillHatVerizon wrote: > This is the output of onstat g spi . > What is po_lock below? > Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more info ? > This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up 09:04:41 --> 733952 Kbytes > > Spin locks with waits: > Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > Bill, po_lock is a spin lock used for low level memory management, and those numbers don't look high, so I would not be concerned. -- Ciao, Marco ______________________________________________________________________________ Marco Greco /UK /IBM Standard disclaimers apply! Structured Query Scripting Language http://www.4glworks.com/sqsl.htm 4glworks http://www.4glworks.com Informix on Linux http://www.4glworks.com/ifmxlinux.htm

IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the activity on it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to some of the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool latch less frequently. Art Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > This is the output of onstat g spi . > What is po_lock below? > Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more info > ? > This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up 09:04:41 > --> 733952 Kbytes > > Spin locks with waits: > Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df

According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you can not use CPU VP memory cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) HTH Hrvoje On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the activity on > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to some of > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool latch > less frequently. > > Art > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor > those of the entities themselves. > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . >> What is po_lock below? >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more info >> ? >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. >> >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up 09:04:41 >> -->> 733952 Kbytes >> >> Spin locks with waits: >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global >> >> >> >> > ******************************************************************************* >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >> >> > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > >

That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. Art Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you can > not use CPU VP memory > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > HTH > Hrvoje > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the activity on > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to some of > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool > latch > > less frequently. > > > > Art > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > nor > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > >> What is po_lock below? > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more > info > >> ? > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > >> > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > 09:04:41 > >> --> >> 733952 Kbytes > >> > >> Spin locks with waits: > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ******************************************************************************* > >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > >> > >> > > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --001a11c36cde42dc0e04e70f10c2

The output of onstat -g spi is so low, it is really not even worth worrying about. The po_pool lock is the hottest mutex which has 118 latch waits in over 9 hours. This means you are averaging 1 wait every 4.5 minutes and only spins 521 times before it acquires the mutex. I generally do not even look at mutex with less than 1000 spins per acquisition. This is the lock on the global memory pool which often deals with config, gls, network, and general overhead items which are not owned by a user. Hope it helps, John F. Miller III STSM, Lead Architect miller3@us.ibm.com 503-747-1366 IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09/23/2013 09:04:07 AM: > From: "Art Kagel" <art.kagel@gmail.com> > To: ids@iiug.org, > Date: 09/23/2013 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: spin locks [31481] > Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org > > That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. > > Art > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor > those of the entities themselves. > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic > <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > > > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you can > > not use CPU VP memory > > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > > HTH > > Hrvoje > > > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the activity on > > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to some of > > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool > > latch > > > less frequently. > > > > > > Art > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > > nor > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > > >> What is po_lock below? > > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more > > info > > >> ? > > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > >> > > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > > 09:04:41 > > >> --> > >> 733952 Kbytes > > >> > > >> Spin locks with waits: > > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > >> > > >> > > > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > --001a11c36cde42dc0e04e70f10c2 > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >

Can you go over what some of the other ones are and which ones are affected by VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB? Also what values for VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB do people use? David. On 23 September 2013 at 18:47 John Miller iii <miller3@us.ibm.com> wrote: > The output of onstat -g spi is so low, it is really not even worth > worrying about. The po_pool lock > is the hottest mutex which has 118 latch waits in over 9 hours. This means > you are averaging 1 wait > every 4.5 minutes and only spins 521 times before it acquires the mutex. I > generally do not even look > at mutex with less than 1000 spins per acquisition. > > This is the lock on the global memory pool which often deals with config, > gls, > network, and general overhead items which are not owned by a user. > > Hope it helps, > > John F. Miller III > STSM, Lead Architect > miller3@us.ibm.com > 503-747-1366 > IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) > > ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09/23/2013 09:04:07 AM: > > > From: "Art Kagel" <art.kagel@gmail.com> > > To: ids@iiug.org, > > Date: 09/23/2013 10:08 AM > > Subject: Re: spin locks [31481] > > Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org > > > > That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. > > > > Art > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > nor > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic > > <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you > can > > > not use CPU VP memory > > > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > > > HTH > > > Hrvoje > > > > > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the > activity on > > > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to > some of > > > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool > > > > latch > > > > less frequently. > > > > > > > > Art > > > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own > opinions > > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor > any > > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those > of > > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am > affiliated > > > nor > > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > > > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > > > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > > > >> What is po_lock below? > > > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without > more > > > info > > > >> ? > > > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > > >> > > > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > > > 09:04:41 > > > >> --> > > >> 733952 Kbytes > > > >> > > > >> Spin locks with waits: > > > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > > > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > > > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > > > > > --001a11c36cde42dc0e04e70f10c2 > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >

When I change it with onmode -vf the engine takes it. 11:17:27 Value of VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB has been changed to 1000. 11:18:21 Current value for VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB (1000) was saved in config file. And I looked in the config file and it is changed. Now when I do onstat -g vpcache, it shows 32 lines of info instead of just barking at me. So I guess it works on IE editions. -----Original Message----- From: Art Kagel Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:04 AM To: ids@iiug.org Subject: Re: spin locks [31481] That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. Art Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you can > not use CPU VP memory > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > HTH > Hrvoje > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the activity > > on > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to some > > of > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the pool > latch > > less frequently. > > > > Art > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > nor > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > >> What is po_lock below? > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without more > info > >> ? > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > >> > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > 09:04:41 > >> --> >> 733952 Kbytes > >> > >> Spin locks with waits: > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > >> > >> > >> > >> > >

The two mutex which are directly effected are sh_stamp and po_lock, but the VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB speeds up malloc()/free() functionality which can have an indirect impact on many things. Setting this to a value of 1024 (i.e. 1MB) can have a great impact. If you are not worried about a few MB then setting this to 4096 would be my starting point. Two additional notes, 1) The functionality of this has been improved so please look at the setting in new releases. 2) This feature is only available with the enterprises edition John F. Miller III STSM, Lead Architect miller3@us.ibm.com ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09/23/2013 12:44:56 PM: > From: "david@smooth1.co.uk" <david@smooth1.co.uk> > To: ids@iiug.org, > Date: 09/23/2013 12:45 PM > Subject: Re: spin locks [31483] > Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org > > Can you go over what some of the other ones are and which ones are > affected by > VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB? > > Also what values for VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB do people use? > > David. > > On 23 September 2013 at 18:47 John Miller iii <miller3@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > The output of onstat -g spi is so low, it is really not even worth > > worrying about. The po_pool lock > > is the hottest mutex which has 118 latch waits in over 9 hours. This means > > you are averaging 1 wait > > every 4.5 minutes and only spins 521 times before it acquires the mutex. I > > generally do not even look > > at mutex with less than 1000 spins per acquisition. > > > > This is the lock on the global memory pool which often deals with config, > > gls, > > network, and general overhead items which are not owned by a user. > > > > Hope it helps, > > > > John F. Miller III > > STSM, Lead Architect > > miller3@us.ibm.com > > 503-747-1366 > > IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) > > > > ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09/23/2013 09:04:07 AM: > > > > > From: "Art Kagel" <art.kagel@gmail.com> > > > To: ids@iiug.org, > > > Date: 09/23/2013 10:08 AM > > > Subject: Re: spin locks [31481] > > > Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org > > > > > > That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. > > > > > > Art > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > > nor > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic > > > <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you > > can > > > > not use CPU VP memory > > > > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > > > > HTH > > > > Hrvoje > > > > > > > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > > > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the > > activity on > > > > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to > > some of > > > > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact withthe pool > > > > > > latch > > > > > less frequently. > > > > > > > > > > Art > > > > > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own > > opinions > > > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor > > any > > > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those > > of > > > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am > > affiliated > > > > nor > > > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > > > > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > > > > >> What is po_lock below? > > > > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without > > more > > > > info > > > > >> ? > > > > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > > > >> > > > > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > > > > 09:04:41 > > > > >> --> > > > >> 733952 Kbytes > > > > >> > > > > >> Spin locks with waits: > > > > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > > > > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > > > > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > > > >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a

I've set it to 4096 or 10240. Art Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM, david@smooth1.co.uk <david@smooth1.co.uk>wrote: > Can you go over what some of the other ones are and which ones are > affected by > VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB? > > Also what values for VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB do people use? > > David. > > On 23 September 2013 at 18:47 John Miller iii <miller3@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > The output of onstat -g spi is so low, it is really not even worth > > worrying about. The po_pool lock > > is the hottest mutex which has 118 latch waits in over 9 hours. This > means > > you are averaging 1 wait > > every 4.5 minutes and only spins 521 times before it acquires the mutex. > I > > generally do not even look > > at mutex with less than 1000 spins per acquisition. > > > > This is the lock on the global memory pool which often deals with config, > > gls, > > network, and general overhead items which are not owned by a user. > > > > Hope it helps, > > > > John F. Miller III > > STSM, Lead Architect > > miller3@us.ibm.com > > 503-747-1366 > > IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) > > > > ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09/23/2013 09:04:07 AM: > > > > > From: "Art Kagel" <art.kagel@gmail.com> > > > To: ids@iiug.org, > > > Date: 09/23/2013 10:08 AM > > > Subject: Re: spin locks [31481] > > > Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org > > > > > > That's true. I missed the "IE" in the version string. > > > > > > Art > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own > opinions > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor > any > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated > > nor > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Hrvoje Zokovic > > > <hzokovic.iiug@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > According to 12.10.TC1IE i think this is innovator-C edition and you > > can > > > > not use CPU VP memory > > > > cache on this edition (it is Enterprise/Ultimate only feature) > > > > HTH > > > > Hrvoje > > > > > > > > On 22.9.2013. 3:20, Art Kagel wrote: > > > > > IB that is the memory pool latch. You can probably reduce the > > activity on > > > > > it by enabling VP_MEMORY_CACHE_KB so that each CPU VP holds on to > > some of > > > > > the memory from the central pool and so has to interact with the > pool > > > > > > latch > > > > > less frequently. > > > > > > > > > > Art > > > > > > > > > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > > > > > > > > > > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) > > > > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own > > opinions > > > > > and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, > nor > > any > > > > > other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, > > > > > implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect > those > > of > > > > > other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am > > affiliated > > > > nor > > > > > those of the entities themselves. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, BillHatVerizon > > > > <garage_dba@verizon.net>wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> This is the output of onstat g spi . > > > > >> What is po_lock below? > > > > >> Do the numbers look high or is it not possible to answer without > > more > > > > info > > > > >> ? > > > > >> This is on Windows server 2008 R2 SP1. > > > > >> > > > > >> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 12.10.TC1IE -- On-Line -- Up > > > > 09:04:41 > > > > >> --> > > > >> 733952 Kbytes > > > > >> > > > > >> Spin locks with waits: > > > > >> Num Waits Num Loops Avg Loop/Wait Name > > > > >> 1 88 88.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 31 15.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 121 121.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 102 102.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 38 38.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 110 110.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 155 155.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 203 203.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 28 28.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 102 51.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 14 14.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 80 80.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 63 31.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 116 116.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 19 19.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 160 160.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 170 170.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 48 48.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 24 24.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 68 68.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 134 67.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 183 91.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 49 49.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 3 284 94.67 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 6 6.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 58 58.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 1 1.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 135 67.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 2 49 24.50 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 61 61.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 1 10 10.00 mutex lock, name = AIOreq > > > > >> 4 759 189.75 shmcb sh_lock > > > > >> 118 60205 510.21 pool po_lock, name = global > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > > > >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion > forum. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > --001a113366bc05dd7b04e6eeb4df > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *************