- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
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
11-20-2006 05:37 AM
11-20-2006 05:37 AM
RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
I just performed an autogen on one of my nodes of a 2-node cluster and I received a "strange" recommendation.
Before I go further, let me explain how I perform an autogen. First, I use sysman to save all the active parameters to a file. Then, I perform an autogen using these parameters: SAVPARAMS SETPARAMS FEEDBACK
Then, I use sysman to save all the current parameters to a file.
I then diff the active and current parameters to see what I have to change using sysman.
So, what I see is that autogen recommends LOCKIDTBL change from 29440 to 25549 and RESHASHTBL recommends a change from 143360 to 32768.
It seems to me that the change RESHASHTBL is quite considerable. And, I wonder if it was every correct. Isn't RESHASHTBL supposed to be between 1/2 and 3/4 of LOCKIDTBL? Would you accept the autogen recommendation?
BTW, I attached the diff file for your reading pleasure.
Thanks,
Jim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-20-2006 05:57 AM
11-20-2006 05:57 AM
Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
I think a easyer way to see the differences generated by Autogen is the following:
$ @sy$update autogen savparams setparams feedback
$ Diff/par sys$system:setparams.dat
The second command (Diff) shows all the differences between the old systemparameters and the one you recieved after doing autogen.
Another very important place where you can get informations about last autogen is the file sys$system:agen$params.report. It's a text file, so you can just type it.
hope that helps
Regards
Heinz
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-20-2006 08:52 AM
11-20-2006 08:52 AM
Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
It might be better not to use feedback, as it will protect you from running autogen without at 24 hours of feedback.
Just use
@sys$update:autogen savparams setparams
Then
$set term/width=132
$Diff/Par sys$system:setparams.dat
That said, the reason your RESHASHTBL
probably has to do with a lot of RMS
and file system locking. You might
wish to get a handle on your locking
activity.
You can actually look at the agen$feedback.dat file. It's simply an
ASCII file. It will show you the locks used
and the amount of your RESHASHTBL used.
It's not magic, mostly just DCL.
Have fun.
Bob
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-20-2006 07:56 PM
11-20-2006 07:56 PM
Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-20-2006 08:08 PM
11-20-2006 08:08 PM
Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
The RESHASHTBL is the number of RESOURCES in the hash table. This table has a fixed number of entries. The guideline says by average 4 locks exist for every resource. But this depends on what you are doing. And autogen should know what you are doing.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-20-2006 10:19 PM
11-20-2006 10:19 PM
Re: RESHASHTBL autogen recommendation
RESHASHTBL should be about 4 times larger than the total no. of resources used in the system (see SYSGEN> HELP SYS_P RESHASHTBL).
You can easily obtain the no. of resources in use on your system with $ MONI LOCK (look at Total Resources) or even with SEARCH SYS$SYSTEM:AGEN$PARAMS.DAT RESOURCES_INUSE
Maybe your system load (in terms of no. of resources) has decreased. The LOCKIDTBL decrease suggested by AUTOGEN may point in the same direction.
How the resource hash table works:
If a new lock is enqued, the system needs to find out, if a resource with the given name already exists in the cluster. The resource name is hashed and used as a lookup key into the resource hash table (on the directory node for this resource name). The has chain is being followed and every resource in that hash chain is checked sequentially. All resources in a given hash chain have the same hash value. If the RESHASHTBL value is (much) too small, the system needs to spend more CPU sequentially searching through the has chain.
Volker.