Physical Log Sizing
A DBA on Informix 11.70 (Solaris) saw the physical log (650MB, CKPTINTVL 300, AUTO_CKPTS/RTO off) exceeding 65% between checkpoints and online.log advisories that the physical log was running out of room, blocking transactions during checkpoints. Advice: enlarge PHYSFILE by roughly 20%; an oversized physical log costs only disk space and simply makes 75%-full blocking checkpoints less likely (and is needed if RTO_SERVER_RESTART is used). Shortening CKPTINTVL is an alternative trade-off: safer but more checkpoint overhead. Use 'onstat -g ckp' / sysckptinfo to confirm Plog-triggered checkpoints. No outcome reported back.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Hi,
We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though we
have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the following
set.
CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
PHYSBUFF 192AUTO_CKPTS 0
RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0
We are also seeing these from the online.log
10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
during checkpoint processing.
10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint is
complete.
10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
Thank You,
--Dave
--94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
Art
Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
ASK Database Management
www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though we
> have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
>
> Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the following
> set.
> CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> PHYSBUFF 192> AUTO_CKPTS 0
> RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0>
> We are also seeing these from the online.log
> 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
> during checkpoint processing.
> 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint is
> complete.
> 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
>
> What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
> increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
>
> Thank You,
>
> --Dave
>
> --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
Thank you Art.
Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1 concern
that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to wait
longer since the phys log is larger?
--Dave
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
>
> Art
>
> Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> ASK Database Management
> www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> > getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> > checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though we
> > have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
> >
> > Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the following
> > set.
> > CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> > PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> > PHYSBUFF 192> > AUTO_CKPTS 0
> > RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0> >
> > We are also seeing these from the online.log
> > 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
> > during checkpoint processing.
> > 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint is
> > complete.
> > 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
> >
> > What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
> > increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > --Dave
> >
> > --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > *******************
> > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >
> >
>
> --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
How long are you waiting currently?
When this happens check
onstat -g ckp
and
select * from sysmaster:sysckptinfo
Regards,
David.
> On 02 May 2017 at 16:03 Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Art.
>
> Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1 concern
> that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
> checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to wait
> longer since the phys log is larger?
>
> --Dave
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> > ASK Database Management
> > www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> > > getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> > > checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though we
> > > have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
> > >
> > > Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the following
> > > set.
> > > CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> > > PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> > > PHYSBUFF 192> > > AUTO_CKPTS 0
> > > RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0> > >
> > > We are also seeing these from the online.log
> > > 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
> > > during checkpoint processing.
> > > 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint is
> > > complete.
> > > 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
> > >
> > > What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
> > > increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
> > >
> > > Thank You,
> > >
> > > --Dave
> > >
> > > --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************************************
> > > *******************
> > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > *******************
> > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >
> >
>
> --001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
That's not a major concern. If the log is too small it will just hit 75%
more often causing more blocking checkpoints. If it is too large then it
will be less likely to hit 75% and so not block checkpoints.
Art
Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
ASK Database Management
www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Art.
>
> Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1 concern
> that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
> checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to wait
> longer since the phys log is larger?
>
> --Dave
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> > ASK Database Management
> > www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> > > getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> > > checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though
> we
> > > have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
> > >
> > > Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the
> following
> > > set.
> > > CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> > > PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> > > PHYSBUFF 192> > > AUTO_CKPTS 0
> > > RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0> > >
> > > We are also seeing these from the online.log
> > > 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
> > > during checkpoint processing.
> > > 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint
> is
> > > complete.
> > > 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
> > >
> > > What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
> > > increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
> > >
> > > Thank You,
> > >
> > > --Dave
> > >
> > > --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************************************
> > > *******************
> > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > *******************
> > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >
> >
>
> --001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--94eb2c1be850b1f191054e8befb2
Thank you. How about lowering the checkpoint interval from 5 minutes to 4
minutes? What is the trade-off of that vs increasing the Phys Log?
Wouldn't lowering the checkpoint also reset the Phys Log % used?
Our checkpoints currently range between 8 and 19 seconds during peak
activity.
--Dave
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not a major concern. If the log is too small it will just hit 75%
> more often causing more blocking checkpoints. If it is too large then it
> will be less likely to hit 75% and so not block checkpoints.
>
> Art
>
> Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> ASK Database Management
> www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Art.
> >
> > Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1 concern
> > that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
> > checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to
> wait
> > longer since the phys log is larger?
> >
> > --Dave
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
> > >
> > > Art
> > >
> > > Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> > > ASK Database Management
> > > www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> > > > getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> > > > checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints
> though
> > we
> > > > have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
> > > >
> > > > Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the
> > following
> > > > set.
> > > > CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> > > > PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> > > > PHYSBUFF 192> > > > AUTO_CKPTS 0
> > > > RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0> > > >
> > > > We are also seeing these from the online.log
> > > > 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of
> room
> > > > during checkpoint processing.
> > > > 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint
> > is
> > > > complete.
> > > > 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
> > > >
> > > > What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
> > > > increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
> > > >
> > > > Thank You,
> > > >
> > > > --Dave
> > > >
> > > > --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ************************************************************
> > > > *******************
> > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************************************
> > > *******************
> > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > *******************
> > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >
> >
>
> --94eb2c1be850b1f191054e8befb2
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--001a1146744440742d054e8c431d
Shortening the checkpoint interval will improve your data safety by 20% but
increase the impact of checkpoints on processing by about the same
percentage. The possibility of eliminating the blocking checkpoints may
offset that cost sufficiently to make it worth a try. Tradeoffs, like
everything we do.
Art
Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
ASK Database Management
www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you. How about lowering the checkpoint interval from 5 minutes to 4
> minutes? What is the trade-off of that vs increasing the Phys Log?
> Wouldn't lowering the checkpoint also reset the Phys Log % used?
>
> Our checkpoints currently range between 8 and 19 seconds during peak
> activity.
>
> --Dave
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's not a major concern. If the log is too small it will just hit 75%
> > more often causing more blocking checkpoints. If it is too large then it
> > will be less likely to hit 75% and so not block checkpoints.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> > ASK Database Management
> > www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Art.
> > >
> > > Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1
> concern
> > > that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
> > > checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to
> > wait
> > > longer since the phys log is larger?
> > >
> > > --Dave
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for
> now.
> > > >
> > > > Art
> > > >
> > > > Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
> > > > ASK Database Management
> > > > www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
> > > > > getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
> > > > > checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints
> > though
> > > we
> > > > > have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the
> > > following
> > > > > set.
> > > > > CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
> > > > > PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
> > > > > PHYSBUFF 192> > > > > AUTO_CKPTS 0
> > > > > RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0> > > > >
> > > > > We are also seeing these from the online.log
> > > > > 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of
> > room
> > > > > during checkpoint processing.
> > > > > 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the
> checkpoint
> > > is
> > > > > complete.
> > > > > 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency
> or
> > > > > increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank You,
> > > > >
> > > > > --Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > *******************
> > > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ************************************************************
> > > > *******************
> > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************************************
> > > *******************
> > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --94eb2c1be850b1f191054e8befb2
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > *******************
> > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >
> >
>
> --001a1146744440742d054e8c431d
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--001a1145e938d61d43054e8c618c
A physical log too large does not hirt. It will only be disk space
reserved for the instance.
However, if you plan to use RTO_SERVER_RESTART, you will need more
physical log space . In this case a much larger physical space is more
than welcome. Even in that case, if you are rich and can afford a large
physical space go for it. Check the output of *onstat -g ckp* to see
what triggered the checkpoint. If you see *Plog*, then the triggerred
event is the physical log reaching 75%.
Cordialement, Regards,
Khaled Bentebal
Directeur Général - ConsultiX
Tél: 33 (0) 1 39 12 18 00
Fax: 33 (0) 1 39 12 18 18
Mobile: 33 (0) 6 07 78 41 97
Email: khaled.bentebal@consult-ix.fr
Site Web: www.consult-ix.fr
Le 02/05/2017 à 17:03, Informix DBA a écrit :
> Thank you Art.
>
> Do we need to be concerned about making the Phys Log too large? 1 concern
> that was mentioned that if a heavy transaction triggers a 75% Phys Log
> checkpoint then it will be blocking and then the system would need to wait
> longer since the phys log is larger?
>
> --Dave
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you need to increase the physical log by about 20% for now.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Art S. Kagel, President and Principal Consultant
>> ASK Database Management
>> www.askdbmgt.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 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 Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Informix DBA <in4mixdba@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are running Informix 11.70.FC7W2 on Solaris. We recently started
>>> getting alerts that the Phys Log was going over 65% used between
>>> checkpoints. Usually it will max around 35% between checkpoints though we
>>> have been having more spikes over 65% due to increased activity.
>>>
>>> Currently We have the Physical Log in its own DB Space and the following
>>> set.
>>> CKPTINTVL 300 # (5 Minutes)
>>> PHYSFILE 665600 # ( 650 MB)
>>> PHYSBUFF 192>>> AUTO_CKPTS 0
>>> RTO_SERVER_RESTART 0>>>
>>> We are also seeing these from the online.log
>>> 10:32:58 Performance Advisory: The physical log is running out of room
>>> during checkpoint processing.
>>> 10:32:58 Results: Transactions are being blocked until the checkpoint is
>>> complete.
>>> 10:32:58 Action: Increase the physical log size.
>>>
>>> What do you recommend? Is it better to lower checkpoint frequency or
>>> increase the Phys Log size or a combination? Other suggestion?
>>>
>>> Thank You,
>>>
>>> --Dave
>>>
>>> --94eb2c1b58322975fd054e8bafd8
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************
>>> *******************
>>> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>>>
>>>
>> --f403043a7ae8208fec054e8bb91a
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> *******************
>> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>>
>>
> --001a11440e08031dac054e8bd7fc
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
Related threads
- Posting from the Informix-list
- Migrating from IDS 9.40.UC6 to 11.50.UC3
- Ip for a network session
- questions onstat -g