1748106 Members
4854 Online
108758 Solutions
New Discussion юеВ

Re: HPUX-11 Upgrade

 
Frank Veripapa
New Member

HPUX-11 Upgrade

We are trying to upgrade several servers running a Progress RDBMS, version 8.3B to HPUX-11 from HPUX-10.20. There is no problem in running batch jobs against HPUX-10.20 or HPUX-11 but the online test between the two operating systems is the problem. While running HPUX-11 we suffer a 50% online performance degredation. Has anyone had similiar experiences or can give me an idea of where the ptoblem might be.

Thank you
4 REPLIES 4
John Palmer
Honored Contributor

Re: HPUX-11 Upgrade

Some questions:-

What type of servers are involved?

Have you upgraded from 10.20 to 11.00 or done a clean install of 11.00.

Are you running 11.00 32bit or 64 bit?

Have you got the kernel similarly configured on 11.00?

I personally haven't experienced any performance problems going from 10.20 to 11.00. All the servers I have done have been clean installs of 11.00 none of which run Progress.

Regards,

John
Andy Monks
Honored Contributor

Re: HPUX-11 Upgrade

If you've done a clean install, maybe you've gone back to default kernel parameters for things like the buffer cache. Depending on how much memory you've got, you'll probably want to reduce 'dbc_max_pct' from 50% down to anything from 5-20% (the more memory, the lower the number I'd recommend).
Tim Malnati
Honored Contributor

Re: HPUX-11 Upgrade

Most of the database vendors have upgraded their engines with 64 bit compiles. Many experienced productivity issues while running 11.X in 32 bit mode. You probably have some kernel differences present that are causing that much of a drop, but you may have to bit the bullet and upgrade the database engine to get the productivity fully back.
Alan Riggs
Honored Contributor

Re: HPUX-11 Upgrade

One thing to remember: if you have updated to 64-bit 11.00 but do not have more than 4 gB of RAM, you will experience some performance degredation. This is because you have the additional overhead of 64-bit memory addresses without actually gaining any address space. This performance hit should be *much* smaller than the 50% you report, though.