> Index activity is an ongoing issue....it seems like we are forever
creating new indexes (and it appears we are recreating these on a
continual basis for the same index).
Well there's half your problem! Creating indexes isn't bad, constantly
re-creating them is VERY bad. Use the Index adviser and these should
stick out like sore thumbs!
We once created an index that took only 1 second to create yet it
dropped system wide CPU usage by TWENTY Percent! How can that be you
say? It was needed by every single query from their web site!! The index
adviser nearly cried out to create that one!
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
On 5/22/2014 10:03 AM, Brian Piotrowski wrote:
Index activity is an ongoing issue....it seems like we are forever creating new indexes (and it appears we are recreating these on a continual basis for the same index).
With that said has anyone taken the IBM course "IBM DB2 for i SQL Performance Monitoring, Analysis and Tuning" and found any value from it?
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Oberholtzer
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:00 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: Running jobs on a separate core
I don't know if a processor group will work in this case because ordinarily the license program is set to run in a processor group. Having not tried to push the QZDASOINIT and/or QSQSRVR jobs into one, I don't know if it can be done (Domino and WAS can be pushed into one).
Look into processor groups, only because you have more than one processor.
Also in your performance investigations remember to look at index activity.
Unless this box is just stressed with workload, I usually find quite a bit of temporary index activity in situations like the one you describe. You should also see quite a bit of I/O activity on the disk units if indexing is going on too.
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:47 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Running jobs on a separate core
Now there's an oxymoron: "new 400".
I don't believe there is a way to dedicate out processors like you can memory. With memory, you can bust it up into subsystems and whatnot. This has been around since, well, back on 400's.
About the only way to dedicate processors is to create separate partitions.
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
Kendallville, IN 46755
From: Brian Piotrowski <bpiotrowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx)"
Date: 05/22/2014 09:26 AM
Subject: Running jobs on a separate core
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In the next month or so our new 400 will be delivered to us. The new box will have two cores because right now our single core machine is being crushed by the QZDASOINIT jobs (they occupy anywhere from 75% - 90% of the CPU utilization at any given time).
Yes, we are investigating the reasons why these jobs are occupying so much, but I wanted to know if there's a way I can dedicate a core to a specific job or subsystem? I would like to move the web jobs off to their own core so the other core can focus on taking care of the other tasks.
Any advice or recommendations would be appreciated.
Manager - I.T.
Simcoe Parts Service, Inc.
Ph: 705-435-7814 x343
Please consider the environment. Don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
The information contained in this communication is confidential and intended only for the use of those to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me by telephone (collect if necessary) and delete or destroy any copies of it. Thank you!