<?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: Slow Performance in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471930#M775535</link>
    <description>It may not be just your hardware configuration.  If your database is on one disk you certainly have an area for contention.  &lt;BR /&gt;However, how efficient is the program?  Is it using indexes?  Sequential scans and "select * from..." absolutlely kill performance.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:20:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Dave Wherry</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2000-12-08T15:20:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471926#M775531</link>
      <description>I have noticed that whenever a report is being runned on our HP9000 11.00, all the users complain that the system slowes down. All the users are hitting the same database on the same disk and I have a feeling that it's most probably a disk performance issue.  I re-verified the bottleneck using sam and I saw the bottleneck on the disk. Is there quick fix to this? Can I modify the kernel?? Can I add even out the disk bottleneck??</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:01:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471926#M775531</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jade Bulante</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T05:01:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471927#M775532</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;If oracle database, you can check heavy IO's dbf file. In this case, you'd betther split dbf file to other disk. &lt;BR /&gt;Here's my some considerations.&lt;BR /&gt;- enlarge buffer cache size&lt;BR /&gt;  nomally, dbc_max_pct : 20, dbc_min_pct : 5&lt;BR /&gt;           bufpages : 0&lt;BR /&gt;- fs_async : 1&lt;BR /&gt;- VxFS mount option&lt;BR /&gt;- IO channel split&lt;BR /&gt;- disk striping&lt;BR /&gt;etc.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:52:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471927#M775532</guid>
      <dc:creator>+¦+ó+±</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T05:52:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471928#M775533</link>
      <description>Hi Jade,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It's not surprising if you have all your database files on the same physical disk.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Unfortunately, the only way to solve this issue would be to spread your database onto multiple disks, relocating datafiles, control files, redo logs... trying to distribute them evenly.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You'll need the help of your DBA to achieve this as it's nos as simple as moving the files.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Best regards,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Dan&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471928#M775533</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dan Hetzel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T06:18:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471929#M775534</link>
      <description>You also might want to consider stripping across multiple spindles and multiple controllers if you have them available</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:55:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471929#M775534</guid>
      <dc:creator>Michael McCauley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T12:55:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471930#M775535</link>
      <description>It may not be just your hardware configuration.  If your database is on one disk you certainly have an area for contention.  &lt;BR /&gt;However, how efficient is the program?  Is it using indexes?  Sequential scans and "select * from..." absolutlely kill performance.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:20:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471930#M775535</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dave Wherry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T15:20:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Slow Performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471931#M775536</link>
      <description>Take a look at these documents: S3100002312A, B and C. You can run the attached script at the peak periods to determine the actual cause of the bottleneck. Modify the kernel as specied on this thread including nbuf and bufpages=0, and set swapmem_on value to 1(one).&lt;BR /&gt;Glance will give you good insight into the problem on the ground.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:22:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/slow-performance/m-p/2471931#M775536</guid>
      <dc:creator>CHRIS_ANORUO</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-08T16:22:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

