Subject | Re[3]: [ib-support] Crash recovery test ! Keep reading... |
---|---|
Author | Carlos H. Cantu |
Post date | 2001-01-27T12:14:10Z |
Ann, thanks for the comments ! I'm trying to get the email of the authors
so I can contact them and get more information about this test.
[]s
Carlos
WarmBoot Informatica - http://www.warmboot.com.br
Interbase-BR - http://www.interbase-br.com
AH> superserver, I'd guess.
AH> 2) When they said that the system froze, did they mean that it didn't
AH> respond to their process or that the server stopped running - was it
AH> using cycles, memory, and disk? Unless I am very much mistaken, the
AH> server was running furiously and doing lots of I/O.
AH> 3) Dropping the table would correct the problem if it was a massive
AH> garbage collection. And (97% probability) it was. The fact that there
AH> was no error and that the problem arose when the much updated table
AH> was touched both point to garbage collection.
AH> 4) What did they have for indexes on the table in question? Did they
AH> try deactivating the indexes? (Why would they?) For those interested,
AH> deactivating the indexes can reduce garbage collection time by a factor
AH> of 100 or more.
AH> Regards,
AH> Ann
AH> www.ibphoenix.com
AH> We have answers. And opinions.
AH> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AH> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
so I can contact them and get more information about this test.
[]s
Carlos
WarmBoot Informatica - http://www.warmboot.com.br
Interbase-BR - http://www.interbase-br.com
>> >> OnlyAH> 1) What version of InterBase were they using? Probably not a V6
>> >> in 1 situation an error was found : While updating 300,000 records with
>> >> forced write ON, after killing the process and trying to connect to the
>> >> database again, the connection was accepted and NO error message was
>> >> reported, but when the user tried to access the table that was being
>> >> updated the system freezed.
AH> superserver, I'd guess.
AH> 2) When they said that the system froze, did they mean that it didn't
AH> respond to their process or that the server stopped running - was it
AH> using cycles, memory, and disk? Unless I am very much mistaken, the
AH> server was running furiously and doing lots of I/O.
AH> 3) Dropping the table would correct the problem if it was a massive
AH> garbage collection. And (97% probability) it was. The fact that there
AH> was no error and that the problem arose when the much updated table
AH> was touched both point to garbage collection.
AH> 4) What did they have for indexes on the table in question? Did they
AH> try deactivating the indexes? (Why would they?) For those interested,
AH> deactivating the indexes can reduce garbage collection time by a factor
AH> of 100 or more.
AH> Regards,
AH> Ann
AH> www.ibphoenix.com
AH> We have answers. And opinions.
AH> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AH> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com