| Author |
Message
|
| strataguru |
 Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:24 pm Post subject: puts taking 3 times as long as expected |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 14
|
hi,
we are noticing that puts on the sun solaris 2.8 box we are working on take 3 times as long as puts take at other sites where we have utilized mq series.
mq ver = 5.3 CSD05
persistence is off.
using iostat - it appears that we have about 1389 kb written per second - where on our other box - it's around 3783 kb per second.
any idea why puts may be taking so much longer?
thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject: Re: puts taking 3 times as long as expected |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| strataguru wrote: |
we are noticing that puts on the sun solaris 2.8 box we are working on take 3 times as long as puts take at other sites where we have utilized mq series.
|
What other details do you have? are those other sites' machines comparable or a lot bigger in terms of number of CPU's, CPU speed, RAM, etc...
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| strataguru |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 14
|
| The CPU speed on the box performing poorly is much greater than at any other site we have. In addition - the RAM is around 16 gig - also must greater than any other installation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
ok so it's not the hardware...
what about the program doing the MQ calls is that the same?
what other stuff is running on the box?
putting to local queues or remote queues via transmission queues?
what are you measuring as your reference?
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| What about the persistence of the messages? Does one of the systems have a queue that is defaulted to persistent and the other not? What about the log files? Does one system have them on a separate file system from the rest of the MQ files? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| strataguru |
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 14
|
Persistence is turned off on all queues that are being tested against. In addition - the volume is very small (between 1,000 to 4,000 messages). At prior installations persistence only seemed to caused identifiable i/o waits when the volume was in the 100,000's.
The file system is VERITAS.
The other interesting thing we've noticed - when running the amqsput utility delivered with mq - we can put 4,000 messages in about 5 seconds. That's expected.
When we try and put with a very simple COBOL program:
Microfocus compiled - Microfocus version info:
cobol v2.2.00-e
PRN=RXCTG/AAH:9g.K4.22.02
PTI=SP1
PTI=Fixpack22.02_7
This compiled program simply reads a file and puts messages onto the queue and takes about 30 seconds longer than the amqsputt to load the same file.
On other machines where our COBOL program is compiled - the speed is very similiar to amqsput.
mqver:
Name: WebSphere MQ
Version: 530.5 CSD05
BuildType: IKAP - (Production)
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bkasisch |
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 16
|
| MichaelDag wrote: |
ok so it's not the hardware...
...
Michael |
That's a very dangerous assumption. Not only do you need to consider hardware speed, but you need to look at system loads. How busy are the cpus, disks? Even though you have 16G of memory how much of it is free? Do you have a high priority or a critical system task running? How does Veritas organize the disk space? (certain disk management systems can fragment disk space and cause long response times.) Also I have seen low priority disk management (trash collection, disk re-orgs) tasks severely degrade response time.
Not to say you don't have a Cobol/app problem, just you need to make sure some other program is not causing the response time problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| bkasisch wrote: |
That's a very dangerous assumption. Not only do you need to consider hardware speed, but you need to look at system loads. |
Isn't that exactly what I addressed in the additional questions?
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bkasisch |
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 16
|
| MichaelDag wrote: |
Isn't that exactly what I addressed in the additional questions?
Michael |
No, just one of your questions asked about "other stuff". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
