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
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
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
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
04-05-2001 03:47 AM
04-05-2001 03:47 AM
I am concerned that the %rcache and %wcache levels are too low.
I'd like an explanation of why they may be low and any steps I can take to improve them.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-05-2001 04:05 AM
04-05-2001 04:05 AM
SolutionVincent
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-05-2001 04:22 AM
04-05-2001 04:22 AM
Re: sar -b
I think the the "rabbit"-answer has already been given by Vincent.
But just want to add: if you are mainly using a database like Oracle which does its own buffering then the OS filesystem buffering is less important.
regards,
Thierry.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-06-2001 01:37 PM
04-06-2001 01:37 PM
Re: sar -b
in case the processes on your box are writing "new"
data to disk (like log-files), then everything is fine -
appending data to existing files cannot be found in the
buffer cache. Your values seem to be really high, not
low, btw!
Be careful NOT to use more than about 400MB of cache,
or it will actually slow down your system.
Use "sar -d" and "iostat" to check for fragmented data
files instead.
HTH,
Wodisch
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-06-2001 04:52 PM
04-06-2001 04:52 PM
Re: sar -b
Here is my 2 cents.
Any read cache hit above 95% should be fine, of course higher the better. Also, don't just look at the percentage alone, the number of physical read/write per second should be taken into account too. As I can see from your sar output that while your %rcache figures dropped below 70%, the number of physical read per sec (pread) was only 2, this I don't think will impose much performance impact on your system.
Usually, putting in more memory will improve system performance because cache hit rate gets better, therefore less physical I/O which is the major factor for a system to run smoothly. This is especially true if you're running RDMBS such as Sybase or Oracle. Large amount of cache memory may be causing more OS management overhead but I believe the benefits on reduced physical I/O could easily outweight such side effect.
Rgds,
Philip
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-08-2001 05:52 PM
04-08-2001 05:52 PM
Re: sar -b
I made a mistake, the physical disk read/write should be represented by bread/s and bwrite/s (not pread/s and pwrite/s as I thought before), One explanation on this is that your system is really lack on memory. Other possibilities are that your system ran RDBMS like Sybase or Oracle, and there were not enough memory allocated. Also, it is possible that there were non-indexed SQL queries which caused table scans, hence led to large amount of physical I/Os.
Rgds,
Philip