Re: journalling overhead -- MIDRANGE-L

I agree that this is _not_ an "interactive job," I would prefer to

think of it as a "very ugly interactive job." How often does someone

need a rate? More than once a day? A little design and coding

might go a long way...

On the other hand, you may have discovered your "parakeet"

that will tell you when your disk arms are too busy. Like the

miners that used a parakeet to warn them when the air in a mine

was getting bad, you may be able to tell how much disk queueing

backlog you have by measuring the response time on this

"read 200,000 records to get a number" routine. I suspect that

some "other" culprit (or collection of culprits) is making

your disks busy. Could be that journalling in the same ASP

is contributing to the problem. Journalling in a separate ASP

might help, if you end up with enough disk arms in the journalling

ASP, and don't starve the system ASP of disk arms. I am a big fan

of 2 and 4 gigabyte disks for this reason...

Charly Jones

Geezer in Gig Harbor

>From: "R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr."

>As Al stated, no not on a read. Reads are not journaled and not

>able to be journaled prior to V5.

>Are you sure you're not reading for update and updating?

>Are you sure you're not reading for update and there are

>lock issues? Has an index changed? Have

>you put the job in debug and checked for index issues?

>Next, an interactive program that reads 200,000 records

>is, IMO _not_ an interactive job, it's a batch job running

>in the interactive environment.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

+--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---