Progress_Guy
Member
Hi Folks,
Few questions please.
We're upgrading our dbase servers (HP-UX 11) and I'm calculating the various semaphore kernel parameters.
One issue confuses me.
SEMMSL
The maximum number of semaphores allowed per semaphore identifier (semaphore
set) =
(Max-local-users-on-any-databases + Max-#servers-on-any-databases + 4)
I understand the principals fine, but, PSC say that client networking users don't use semaphores, as the server process they hit uses them - fair enough :lol:
But, doesn't the 'Max-local-users-on-any-databases' equate to the -n parameter and the -n parameter dicates how many TOTAL (not just local) users can connect. Or, are you supposed to derive the 'Max-local-users-on-any-databases' by subtracting off the -n how many are going to be remote clients (i.e. not using shared memory), so, say, if -n was 100, but, 60 of these were estimated to be remote then I should use ''Max-local-users-on-any-databases' = 40 for my calculation.
I'm worried, because, currently when adding databases to our overloaded servers we get semaphore issues, which I have previously resolved by dropping the -n on a few databases.
Does this go deeper ? Am I also mis-using the -n parameter. :blush1:
Also please, all our databases (with exception of a couple which are hit by ODBC) use only one broker with the default of 4 servers. Does anyone think these days it's worth balancing our servers between multiple brokers !! Any serious benefits. A typical database has -n 100, a single broker with the default number of servers (i.e. 4). What about sticking with one broker, but, more servers. I'm no UNIX guru, so, these questions are a little beyond my skill set.
Many Thanks.
Few questions please.
We're upgrading our dbase servers (HP-UX 11) and I'm calculating the various semaphore kernel parameters.
One issue confuses me.
SEMMSL
The maximum number of semaphores allowed per semaphore identifier (semaphore
set) =
(Max-local-users-on-any-databases + Max-#servers-on-any-databases + 4)
I understand the principals fine, but, PSC say that client networking users don't use semaphores, as the server process they hit uses them - fair enough :lol:
But, doesn't the 'Max-local-users-on-any-databases' equate to the -n parameter and the -n parameter dicates how many TOTAL (not just local) users can connect. Or, are you supposed to derive the 'Max-local-users-on-any-databases' by subtracting off the -n how many are going to be remote clients (i.e. not using shared memory), so, say, if -n was 100, but, 60 of these were estimated to be remote then I should use ''Max-local-users-on-any-databases' = 40 for my calculation.
I'm worried, because, currently when adding databases to our overloaded servers we get semaphore issues, which I have previously resolved by dropping the -n on a few databases.
Does this go deeper ? Am I also mis-using the -n parameter. :blush1:
Also please, all our databases (with exception of a couple which are hit by ODBC) use only one broker with the default of 4 servers. Does anyone think these days it's worth balancing our servers between multiple brokers !! Any serious benefits. A typical database has -n 100, a single broker with the default number of servers (i.e. 4). What about sticking with one broker, but, more servers. I'm no UNIX guru, so, these questions are a little beyond my skill set.
Many Thanks.