A couple years back the firm I was with was testing JDE OneWorld, which was
ODBC based.  Due to multi-minute response times, possible performance
adjustments were examined ... *MAX1TB was one of them.  After changing the
files related to the test (always all LF for a given PF) performance
improved dramatically, though response time never became acceptable.  After
reading up on ACCPTHSIZ I changed all files in the system on a Sunday using
a PDM user option (thousands of files, some over 100,000,000 records, about
70 Gig overall).  OS/400 uses a different algorithm to access records when
using MAX1TB vs *Max4GB.  That algorithm is usually but not always faster.
You asked about mixing *MAXxxx methods for LF's relating a common PF ... I
can't see any reason to do that.
-Dave K.

----- Original Message -----
From: <prumschlag@phdinc.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: ACCPTHSIZ perfomance - *MAX1TB vs *MAX4GB


>
>
> I found this in the Archives, and I am looking for futher detail.  The IBM
> Redbook "AS/400 Availability and Recovery..." recommends all logicals
related to
> a physical should be 1TB or 4GB, but do not mix them.  It refers to
performance
> issues if you mix them, but it is not clear if they are referring to
overall
> performance, or performance in a specific program.  Anyone have any
success
> stories  with this?  I need to resolve a serious (2 minute) response time
issue.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>
>    Subject: Re: CISC to RISC and Excessive Logical I/O
>    From: "Mark Phippard" <MarkP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:31:48 -0400
>
>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>
>
>    Tom,
>
>    Do a DSPFD on the PF and all of its associated LF's and look at the
Access
>    Path Size (ACCPTHSIZ) parameter.  If the PF and LF's do not have the
same
>    value in this field, it can cause performance problems.  For best
>    performance, IBM recommends you change the value to *MAX1TB on all
files.
>
>    Maybe the PF came over with *MAX4GB and the LF's have been created on
the
>    RISC box with the new default of *MAX1TB?
>
>    Hope this helps.
>
>    Mark Phippard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.