<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: sar/vmstat vs glance in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015697#M427418</link>
    <description>I'd vote for Glance as it comes to accuracy. It uses midaemon collected set of data,as oposed to&lt;BR /&gt;ps,top,sar,vmstat which use kernel counters (pstat). And obviously would suggest OVPA (former measureware) as a way to collect data and analyze later.</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:42:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Zeev Schultz</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-11-26T07:42:15Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015695#M427416</link>
      <description>I am working with Oracle DBA to analyze performance problem. I have a Superdome running 11.i OS. the question I have is elow.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The SAR &amp;amp; VMSTAT are showing Wait IO upto 28% when I run these utilities on server. However, glance and top are not showing io waits that high. Idle time in SAR averages around 40% whereas in TOP it is around 60 to 65%. I would like confirm which source is correct.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;All replies are appreciated.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:00:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015695#M427416</guid>
      <dc:creator>Regina Mitchell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-26T00:00:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015696#M427417</link>
      <description>Shalom,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Sorry, you probably can't confirm which source is correct.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;sar and glance collect their data in different ways and at different intervals. Sometimes even the calculation methodology is a little different.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Therefore coming to a conclusion about which data is correct is probably impossible, since more than likely both data sets are correct based on the criteria I outlined above.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I don't have glance in all locations and try and use a standardized set of sar tools for this information, and they've never pointed me wrong as far as finding performance problems.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.hpux.ws/system.perf.sh" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.hpux.ws/system.perf.sh&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Adjustable, runs background and thats production code I just posted up there, tried and tested world-wide.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;SEP</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:11:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015696#M427417</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven E. Protter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-26T01:11:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015697#M427418</link>
      <description>I'd vote for Glance as it comes to accuracy. It uses midaemon collected set of data,as oposed to&lt;BR /&gt;ps,top,sar,vmstat which use kernel counters (pstat). And obviously would suggest OVPA (former measureware) as a way to collect data and analyze later.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:42:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015697#M427418</guid>
      <dc:creator>Zeev Schultz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-26T07:42:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015698#M427419</link>
      <description>sar and vmstat report very crude measurements and technically, an single I/O wait percentage is almost meaningless. You want to look at specific disks and look for large queue lengths (more than 2 or 3), as well as avwait and avserv times that are very high (double digits or more). If the numbers are all low during a busy period, the problem is probably Oracle not using enough SGA, unbalanced indexes, full or partial searches in the SQL code, etc.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:20:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015698#M427419</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bill Hassell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-26T14:20:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015699#M427420</link>
      <description>All,&lt;BR /&gt;Thank You for your replies. The explanation did help understand the discrepencies.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:00:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015699#M427420</guid>
      <dc:creator>Regina Mitchell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-28T02:00:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: sar/vmstat vs glance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015700#M427421</link>
      <description>The answers provided a better understanding to my question.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:02:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/sar-vmstat-vs-glance/m-p/5015700#M427421</guid>
      <dc:creator>Regina Mitchell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-28T02:02:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

