Hello, thanks for replying. Pawel, trying to answering your questions: for jbase: 1) yeah i tried a SELECT FBNK.CATEG.ENTRY which is distributed in 25 part files. size of each part is roughly 610MB & modulo is 105019 and the recommended is 110491. i dont think its that badly resized at the moment. All files are of J4 type.
2)im not sure what you mean by that so i paste the output of jstat -v of 1 part file: jstat -v FBNK.CATEG.ENTRY.NEW.19 File ../bnk.data/ac/FBNK.CATE038 Type=J4 , Hash method = 5 Created at Mon Oct 19 17:14:13 2009 Groups = 105019 , Frame size = 4096 bytes , Secondary Record Size = 8192 bytes Restore re-size parameters : (none) File size = 617713664 bytes , Inode = 647794 , Device = Id 2555905 Last Accessed Thu Aug 26 10:19:27 2010 , Last Modified Thu Aug 26 10:19:27 2010 Backup = YES , Log = YES , Rollback = YES , Network = AUTO Record Count = 1490637 , Record Bytes = 412031668 Bytes/Record = 276 , Bytes/Group = 3923 Primary file space: Total Frames = 150808 , Total Bytes = 412031668 Secondary file space: Total Frames = 0 , Total Bytes = 0 jsh fbbtest ~ --> jsh fbbtest ~ -->jrf -Rv FBNK.CATEG.ENTRY.NEW.19 FBNK.CATEG.ENTRY.NEW.19 (../bnk.data/ac/FBNK.CATE038) Type J4, 1490637 records a t size 276, Resize from modulo 105019 to 110491. 3)i dont think we have triggers but ill have to ask a programmer about that. and answering the SAN related questions: 1+2) we are using 4x 146GB 15K SAS hds 4Gbit FC on RAID 10.so they are basically 2 physical disks mirrored on another pair. these appear as 1 PV (physical volume) through AIX. 3) "how many ranks?"i m not familiar with the ranks term. 4)i have been looking for the stripe size for some time but i cannot find anything like that on the storage. you are probably asking about the raid stripe size of the array. (segment size is 128KB which is also another relevant parameter but adjusting it to 256KB some time ago didnt really gain a significant advantage.) 5) no the SAN is used by many servers.there are a few other RAID arrays used by windows servers.still even when i test the system when im the only user on the server and SAN utilisation is fairly idle i get roughly the same numbers. 6) yeah IBM says that there is no problem at all with the storage.nevertheless they do care about the AIX performance which is ok, so if jbase acts weird they wont really care about it a lot. by the way i forgot to mention that jbase resides on a JFS fs. JFS2 was performing way slower even on native aix commands so we arent using it at all. Jim yeah i know dd from a pseudo device will give me a theoretical maximum but i just mentioned so that you know that it can get past the low speeds of 5-10MB/sec and that there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the storage itself in the first place. i understand that raw dd is nowhere close to the way a db is performing.theres a lot of logical processing as you also pointed out. i have read some older posts where you mention about jrf and/or tar compress and extracting the whole environment from the beginning.not sure if thats possible to do at this time but i will definitely run an aix defragmentation. i do try to jrf files tho as much as possible. i know SSD now run fine on desktops with some amazing write speeds like your Vortex. i havent really seen any on servers or storage etc so i dont really have an opinion on that.I think it would be a bit weird to propose an SSD solution now since we actually got an expansion of our storage a couple of months ago and we are using the storage for nearly everything.plus i think it would probably be a bit expensive but thats just a guess i havent looked up to it. However Jim i would like to hear a few numbers regarding the speed even just for the record. For example if 10 people were saying that they have hardware similar to us and they were getting like 60-70MB on many things they run on jbase then ok i would wonder more on whats going wrong with me.But if speeds of like 10Mb/sec were mentioned i would worry a bit less :). i just want have a view about hows other people running in general cause i havent got really anybody else to compare and talk about it. Thanks for your time. On Aug 26, 6:51 pm, "Jim Idle" <[email protected]> wrote: > Best answer to SAN? Use it for backup and install some fast local disks (and > these days, use the OCX Vertex Pro SSDs in RAID and you will not look back). > > However, the poster said he had 4 local disks in RAID 10 and got about > 110MB/s. In contrast, my SINGLE SATA II SSD drive in my QX9660 based system > is capable of continuous writes at 385MB/s at a cost of about $650 8 months > ago (and the price drops every week). To buy disks from IBM (or systems even > really) these days makes no sense at all. If you must buy IBM, then get them > to sell you SSD based local arrays. > > If you are a smaller company looking for performance, then SSD and more RAM > will amaze you:-) > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Pawel (privately) > > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:26 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Odp: jbase 4 performance (speeds...?) > > Question 5: is this SAN shared (affected by non-T24 traffic) or exlusively > > used > > for T24? > > Question 6: can you afford for SAN / IBM specialist? :))))))) Can you give > > you > > good one from IBM Poland. -- 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
