- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: file system buffer size confirmation
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 05:48 AM
тАО01-11-2006 05:48 AM
bufpages=261324
dbc_max_pct=2
dbc_min_pct=2
This means that buffer size is set to a hard size since bufpages > 0. The actual buffer size is
261324*4096= 1,070,833,104 bytes. (1gb)
So the filesystem buffer size is 1gb.
This is correct calculation?
Thanks for your help, just looking for confirmation of my calculation..or correct my calculation. Going to recommend the client cuts this in half for performance reasons if my calculation is correct.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 05:53 AM
тАО01-11-2006 05:53 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
Yes, I agree. However, you don't say *what* the client is running or how much physical memory they have. "Your mileage may vary" always applies.
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 05:58 AM
тАО01-11-2006 05:58 AM
SolutionOh, I presume(d) too, that 'nbuf=0'.
http://docs.hp.com/en/TKP-90202/re08.html?btnNext=next%A0%BB
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 05:59 AM
тАО01-11-2006 05:59 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 06:07 AM
тАО01-11-2006 06:07 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
The server run's PeopleSofts application servers only.
What are your thoughts on this environment as I am noticing a high deactivation rate >2.
My dbc_max_percent is set to the default of 50%.
I noticed in glance that I only seem to use about 500mb of buffer cache.
Thanks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 06:14 AM
тАО01-11-2006 06:14 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
Well, I presume an Oracle database from what you report. Since Oracle has its own buffer cache, in the absence of other information (in particular, JFS mount options), I'd reduce the Unix buffer cache to perphas 400,000 bytes or a 'dbc_max_pct' ~ 5% and a 'dbc_min_pct' = 2%. To enable this, you must set 'nbuf=0' along with 'bufpages'.
Unlike Clay, I prefer a dynamic buffer cache. Either way, however, I think your buffer cache size is too large.
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 06:35 AM
тАО01-11-2006 06:35 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 06:38 AM
тАО01-11-2006 06:38 AM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 08:34 PM
тАО01-11-2006 08:34 PM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
What holds the file systems here ? If this is a sort of storage with sufficient cache then setting direct I/O will substantially improve performance. The will off course reduce usage of buffer cache.
The important factor again will be the amount of cache at the storage level.
HTH,
Devender
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-11-2006 08:51 PM
тАО01-11-2006 08:51 PM
Re: file system buffer size confirmation
For administrators who choose not to use dynamic buffer caching, the two kernel parameters, nbuf and bufpages, control static buffer allocation. If bufpages is nonzero, it specifies the fixed number of 4096-byte pages that are to be allocated for the file system buffer cache. nbuf is provided for backward compatibility purposes. If set to a nonzero value, nbuf specifies the maximum number of buffer headers that can exist in the buffer header array. However, the preferred approach is to set nbuf to zero, in which case, one header is created for each two bufpages allocated.