<?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: dbc_max_pct in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646249#M879833</link>
    <description>You are right, unless you are running db2, all other DB's have there own IO cache so the value should be reduced.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:20:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jeff Machols</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:20:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646247#M879831</link>
      <description>WE have relatively small databases on an L1000 11/64 and the dba is 2K block size.  The default is 8K on the system.  I reduced the dbc_max_pct to 10% from default 50%. I believe this should relieve block I/o contention, am I right?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:13:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646247#M879831</guid>
      <dc:creator>lastgreatone</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:13:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646248#M879832</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;As Oracle has its own buffer cache (database buffer cache), it is really unnecessary to have a large OS buffer cache. As such, dbc_max_pct should be set to a minimal to prevent double buffering.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Hope this helps. Regards.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Steven Sim Kok Leong</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:18:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646248#M879832</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven Sim Kok Leong</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:18:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646249#M879833</link>
      <description>You are right, unless you are running db2, all other DB's have there own IO cache so the value should be reduced.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:20:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646249#M879833</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jeff Machols</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:20:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646250#M879834</link>
      <description>Hi Frankie:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Your assumption is correct. You have another option and that is to fix the buffer cache at some value by setting bufpages to a non-zero value. e.g. bufpages=80000 will set the value to 320MB. I find that on even very large servers that typically the marginal improvements in buffer cache hit rates become very small above 300-400 MB. If your are using raw/io or the OnlineJFS mount options convosync=direct,mincache=direct which bypass the unix buffers, you can reduce the buffer cache even lower especially for a machine that is a pure database server. I really prefer fixed buffer cache because it allows one to tune other parameters while keeping the buffer cache constant.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:25:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646250#M879834</guid>
      <dc:creator>A. Clay Stephenson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:25:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646251#M879835</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You are totally right. Check these threads for more information on dbc_max_pct:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0xbfa872234586d5118ff00090279cd0f9,00.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0xbfa872234586d5118ff00090279cd0f9,00.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.docs.hp.com/cgi-bin/otsearch/getfile?id=/hpux/onlinedocs/os/KCparam.DBCmaxPct.html&amp;amp;searchterms=dbc_max_pct&amp;amp;queryid=20020116-064151" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.docs.hp.com/cgi-bin/otsearch/getfile?id=/hpux/onlinedocs/os/KCparam.DBCmaxPct.html&amp;amp;searchterms=dbc_max_pct&amp;amp;queryid=20020116-064151&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HTH,&lt;BR /&gt;Shiju&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:36:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646251#M879835</guid>
      <dc:creator>Helen French</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:36:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646252#M879836</link>
      <description>Hi Frankie,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It depends. On the Physical memory you have. It is not recommended to set it to any value more than 300MB. So, you can adjust your dbc_max_pct to get around 300MB. Another dependency is about your application. Having a very low buffer cache will degrade sequential reads. And if your application does it a lot, then you will be losing the performance.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;-Sri</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:47:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646252#M879836</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sridhar Bhaskarla</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-16T14:47:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dbc_max_pct</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646253#M879837</link>
      <description>dbc_max_pct in the past was said not to scale more than 800M now I am hearing 300M.  I will have alot of performance tuning work to do on these sites.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My advice is to try on your own server.  Good rule of thumb is on dbase server to do 5-10 for dbc_max_pct.  Optimal performance will come when you bypass dynamic buffer cache sizing ( set nbufs )&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;mincache=direct,convosync=direct mount parameters will allow direct I/O which means the UNIX buffer cache is tottaly bypassed on read/writes.  This is great for OSYNC writes, and non sequential reads.  &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;However sequential read performance is hurt more than 2x on these filesystems.  Also filesystem based I/O (such as backups, filecopies suffer horrendously).  I haven't seen many databases which do not tablescan.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Final suggestion is to use mincache=direct,convosync=direct only on those filesystems which have mostly completely random I/O pattern ( no tablescan ), or heavy writes ( bypass double buffered write ).  The gain is approximately 10% in these cases.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My suggestion is larger than the 300-800M for servers which are more than simply database servers.  Too small of a buffer cache is a bad situation, because you encounter thrashing of the buffer cache.  This occurs when you have many competing processes attempting to allocate space in the cache.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;On NFS servers, Clearcase servers, servers where large files are moved, use as much buffer cache as the box can stand with improved performance.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:51:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/dbc-max-pct/m-p/2646253#M879837</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dennis J Robinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-01-21T20:51:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

