Thanks Jim for the reply , Yes i did had a look at the settings , but i assume that is more towards AIX5.2 and 5.3 has many changes as compared to 5.2, especially with memory handling.So i was just referring whether any other changes are reqd with 5.3 , related to jBASE .
In the case of SAN, we use EMC, symmetrix and Clariion disks and i am sure that the performance is pretty good if we take jBASE out of the picture. A simple tar and compress itself is giving me 60-70MB /s and normal "dd" commands also giving me asimilar throughput. I need to verify everything from the server side , before going to EMC for clarifications...! Is there any direct relationship to the modulo which is being used to create a file and the I/O which it makes when the file is accessed ? Also, one more query, we have found that the jBASE/T24 is not making use of SMT, the second logical thread for the CPU. Is it that something needs to be compiled again. Regards RC On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Jim Idle <[email protected]> wrote: > > rc wrote: > > Hi , > > > > I would be interested to know if there any specfic performance > > settings at the server level for jBASE 5.0.1.5. > Did you look at the AIX tuning guide on the web site for this group? > > > We use AIX 5.3 and we > > have jBASE on p570's , p590's and p595 . On some of the benchmarking > > tests we did find the I/O to the SAN storage i,horribly slow . > See many past posts, but SAN arrays are usually pathetic in my > experience and you are better with a really good local array. But if you > are seeing really bad performance, look to tuning the SAN access > patterns rather than the local system per se. > > The > > throughput is not even going beyond an MB for some of the jobs. The > > environment is on T24 and the logical volume is striped across 12 hard > > disks with 4K as stripe width . > > > 4K stripe does not sound very good, usually you want something like 8MB > because you will benefit from track reads on individual disks. WHo is > advising you about your SAN array? Also, on SANs, you usually cannot > know how the disks are organized when viewing from teh OS - do you mean > you have configured your SAN to do that with physical disks? > > If not I/O where else can the bottle necks be. > > > > Appreciate a reply to this > You need to supply a lot more information to get any help basically. > Sounds like your SAN is poorly configured, but you don't say what SAN > you are using (or why you think a SAN is good idea ;-), or what tests > you have done before trying jBASE on the SAN - I presume you have run > some standard disk IO benchmarks right? Take jBASE out of the equation > and get your disk IO performing - you want a balance of sequential and > random performance, with a lean towards sequential read if you are > concerned about batch jobs (but generally the problem lies with people's > batch jobs and the use of SSELECT over SELECT and so on). > > Jim > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Please read the posting guidelines at: http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE/web/Posting%20Guidelines IMPORTANT: Type T24: at the start of the subject line for questions specific to Globus/T24 To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
