× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



The little note at the bottom of that link:
<snip> IBM i intends to remove the SQE_NATIVE_ACCESS control in the release after IBM i 7.3.</snip>
Came true.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ssw_ibm_i_74/rzaq9/rzaq9osDBSQENativeAccess.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Diego Kesselman
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 9:57 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent performance

I guess is SQE Native Access

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/ssw_ibm_i_72/rzaq9/rzaq9osDBSQEvsCQE.htm

Try setting a QAQQINI on QUSRSYS with SQE_NATIVE_ACCESS =*NO

El mar., 30 de abr. de 2019 08:52, Paul Roy <Paul.Roy@xxxxxx> escribió:

Hello,

Since a few weeks after installing cumpack 18249 at V7R2, we face
inconsistent performance problems...
the same job can take from 3 to 40 minutes in equivalent situation...
the difference from the component report looks in the number of
physical I/O... and the CPU.
job A : 580000 logical I/O ... 222500 Sync I/O ... 117500 Async I/O
perm write 95654 CPU 766 sec (0,29%) duration 25 minutes
job B : 570500 logical I/0 ... 73000 Sync I/O ... 27000 Async
I/O perm write 19051 CPU 8 sec (0,003%) duration 3 minutes

we have 10 jobs started in parallel (each one is handling 1/10 of the
db selected on the last digit of the contract number - the selection
is made with an OPNQRYF ) so the volume and the process in roughly the same in all
jobs. The same process takes 6 CPU sec one day and 600 CPU secs the other
day... this was running smoothly before and the duration is now
unpredictable.

I do not understand what can cause the difference.
What can explain the difference ... same process same number of
logical I/O but much more physical disk I/O...

any suggestion welcome

Thanks

Paul


--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To
subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: https://amazon.midrange.com

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link: https://amazon.midrange.com

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.