MIDRANGE-L » February 2013

Re: qtemp performance oddity.

Subject: Re: qtemp performance oddity.
From: Sue Baker <smbaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:12:44 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2/27/2013 9:21 PM, DrFranken wrote:

Any ideas? Anyone recognize these symptoms?

Do you have performance data from before and after? You don't mention what the disk response time is. I'd be looking at what the disk service and wait times are. If significantly different, then I'd be checking into the seek counts.

I'm thinking those jobs that use QTEMP are experiencing long seeks so longer disk response times than they used to.

This thread ...

Re: qtemp performance oddity., (continued)
- Re: qtemp performance oddity., Sue Baker <=
  - Re: qtemp performance oddity. , DrFranken
- Re: qtemp performance oddity. , Steve Hinrichs

Follow-Ups:
- Re: qtemp performance oddity. , DrFranken

Prev by Author: Re: Virtual disks for an i partition
Next by Author: Re: How to relate performance of new models
Previous by thread: Re: qtemp performance oddity.
Next by thread: Re: qtemp performance oddity.
Index(es):

Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact