- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best pe...
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
тАО01-22-2002 08:39 AM
тАО01-22-2002 08:39 AM
I've inherited an 11.0 N400 running Progress 83d. Our databases are defined as jfs (online JFS 3.1) filesystems on EMC luns (Symmetrix with mirrored disks).
I'd like suggestions for best performance, especially with lvcreate options, mount options, etc.
Some specific questions:
1. Does lvm striping of a logical volume on a mirrored EMC lun help more than spreading out the db extents over multiple filesystems?
2. Should mount -nolog be used?
3. Should mount -o mincache=direct be used?
Any suggestions and explanations are appreciated.
Thanks,
Darrell
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 08:48 AM
тАО01-22-2002 08:48 AM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
Thanks again,
Darrell
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 08:58 AM
тАО01-22-2002 08:58 AM
Solution1. I think the choice of LVM striping vs. LVM distributed extents depends on what level of granularity you want, *and* whether or not your environment is OLTP-based or oriented to large, sequential access through large tables.
I'd certainly choice one or the other rather than "isolating" large portions of logical volumes on one physical disk.
2. I would *not* mount with the 'nolog' option. This is intended for memory resident of temporaray filesystems. See the man pages for 'mount_vxfs' for more information.
3. I like the following mount options:
delaylog,nodatainlog,mincache=direc
t,convosync=direct
In this fashion, performance is increased because the file system buffer cache to be bypassed.
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 09:04 AM
тАО01-22-2002 09:04 AM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
Some intereste things related with Block size in DB is that you must select a block size for the DB at least equal to the OS block size but the optimal size for it depends on which kind of DB do you want to install. For example in an OLTS you must set the DB block size at the lowest possible value but in a Datawarehouse you would prefer a bigger value for the DB block size.
In www.docs.hp.com you can find information about hpux.
http://www.docs.hp.com/hpux/onlinedocs/B3929-90011/B3929-90011.html
Another good forum is www.tek-tips.com
Best regards
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 09:05 AM
тАО01-22-2002 09:05 AM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 09:14 AM
тАО01-22-2002 09:14 AM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
I might add that one of the simplest summaries of Online JFS mount options I've seen is this reproduction from Technicall Knowledge Base document #KBRC00007737:
/begin_quote/
Online JFS 3.1
-o delaylog ??? Intent log writes are asynchronous. ???Double??? write will still occur but the process does not block while the intent log is being written to ?? potential performance increase.
-o tmplog ??? Intent log writes are delayed; recent changed will be lost if the system crashes. This option is recommended for temporary file systems.
-o mincache=direct ??? All reads and non O_SYNC writes are unbuffered. This degrades performance. The trade-off is to reduce the need for pages in buffer cache versus process blocking. Use for large I/O direct from the application.
-o mincache=tmpcache ??? Disable delayed writes and extent clears when file is extended; explicit fsync required to post changes. The trade-off is data integrity versus performance. This option is useful for temporary files.
-o convosync=direct ??? Converts reads and O_SYNC writes to unbuffered. Improve the performance. The trade-off is between increased
performances when source code is not available versus possible loss of data integrity.
-o nodatainlog ??? Posts O_SYNC writes of the data directly to the file. Improve performance. The trade-off is a fewer writes with possibly increased head movement versus double writes with less head moves.
Note: In order to use these options, customer must have the OnlineJFS.
/end_quote/
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 10:59 AM
тАО01-22-2002 10:59 AM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-22-2002 07:48 PM
тАО01-22-2002 07:48 PM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
Thanks,
Darrell
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-02-2002 12:32 PM
тАО04-02-2002 12:32 PM
Re: Progress lv and filesystem options for best performance
I think it is better to put full logging, convosync=direct etc. ie the caching should be set to minimal on the OS side.
Also when the system writes to symm, it will be writing to the symm cache and symm will immediately return acks for writing, it is better to use full capabilities of the filesystem rather than worry about the speed.
any comments ????