Re: informix parameters in onconfig file

edem wrote: > > Can anyone advise me what can i make better in onconfig file > Informix 7.30FC7 ( will be 7.31FC2 soon ) on HP-UX 11 ( machine V2500 6 > processors) > i am using kaio ( kaioon=1 ) > Any advise will be very helpful > Thanks! > > And this is my onconfig file : It is VERY difficult to diagnose a configuration in a vacuum. you would have to post a description of any problems you suspect or experience and also some onstat output showing the problem or showing related stats that we can use to analyse the causes. Having said that I do see some absolute problems: [SNIP] > DBSERVERNAME inf2 # Name of default database server> DBSERVERALIASES inf2s,inf2o,inf2r # List of alternate dbservernames > #NETTYPE sqlmux # Configure poll thread(s) for nettype You do not need TCP listeners in BOTH CPU VPs and NET VPs, one VP class will do. I recommend TCP listeners in NET VPs and shared memory listeners in CPU VPs, so drop the first entry below. > NETTYPE soctcp,5,128,CPU # Configure poll thread(s) for nettype > NETTYPE soctcp,5,128,NET # Configure poll thread(s) for nettype You have 6 CPU VPs, I always recommend having ALL CPU VPs listening for work, it tends to spread the workload more evenly and prevents maxing out any one CPU. Change the next entry to "ipcshm,6,32,CPU". > NETTYPE ipcshm,1,32,CPU # Configure poll thread(s) for nettype [SNIP] > BUFFERS 2000000 # Maximum number of shared buffers [SNIP] There values are HUGE and are likely taking up memory for no good reason. > # DATA-Dictionary Cache > DD_HASHMAX 20 > DD_HASHSIZE 1021Do you REALLY have 20,000 active tables? If not reduce DD_HASHSIZE so that the product of DD_HASHMAX * DD_HASHSIZE is no more than twice the number of active tables. Someone recently passed me a script that attempts to simulate the hashing behavior and predict how deep DD_HASHMAX needs to be for a given DD_HASHSIZE and also tries to determine an ideal value for DD_HASHSIZE. I have encouraged him to post it to the Repository so it should be available soon. Meantime post a message if you want a copy from the author. > # Stored Procedure Cache > #PC_HASHSIZE 199 > #PC_POOLSIZE 511 > PC_HASHSIZE 1021 > PC_POOLSIZE 2111Same here. I doubt that you REALLY have something on the order of 2,155,331 stored procedures. Find out how many you really do have or will have over time and adjust these so the product is around twice that value MAXIMUM. > # Distribution Cache > DS_HASHSIZE 1021 > DS_POOLSIZE 3501Again, do you have 3,574,521 tables? Then the DD_ params are WAY too small ;-) If not these DS_ parameters are WAY too large. [SNIP] Art S. Kagel