| Subject | Re: [IBO] IBO need more memory on server than BDE? |
|---|---|
| Author | Rolf Bredemeier |
| Post date | 2002-06-17T06:20:42Z |
Hi Jason!
about that. An don't show you the wrong track! But i realy think, the reason
must be the converting to IBO... Nothing other happend. I will try to eplain
exactly what happens:
The ammount of virtual memory for the ibserver process grows and grows.
It never shrinks. Never shrinking is o.k. The virtual memory is only turned back
to OS, after the ibserver quit. It's ok, because memory managment under NT is
process based. But, after ending a connection ( an so ending a thread from the
ibserver process) the allocated memory for this thread should be flagged as free
from the ibserver process. And next time the ibserver processs use memory, he first
should use the "free flagged" memory. In my case, it seems, he don't.
Another effect: Holger Klemt told me to try the setting:
SERVER_WORKING_SIZE_MAX 100000 in the ibconfig. But that take no affect.
Somewhere i have read, that the caching of metadata is not limited by the ibserver-process.
Maybe, that is the trend?
Each user ist running average 4 or 5 programs (and so, connections).
It can't say, which program/connection make this effect.
What can i do? I can't send you all programs and data. My boss will
kill me. ;-) I will try to look for a program, that make this effect. But
that's hard to do. Many programs, perhaps "synergie" effects? I will try it,
keep your finges crossed for me!
Thanks, that you don't let me stand out in the cold!
Best regards, Rolf
> Will you please do me a favor and work on this with me to isolate this?Yes, of course! If i can...
> There isn't any reason IBO should be needing more memory than the BDE soThe fist time you heared from this effect is from me? I hope, i am not wrong
> this must for sure be a problem that needs attention. I'm assuming it is
> anyway.
about that. An don't show you the wrong track! But i realy think, the reason
must be the converting to IBO... Nothing other happend. I will try to eplain
exactly what happens:
The ammount of virtual memory for the ibserver process grows and grows.
It never shrinks. Never shrinking is o.k. The virtual memory is only turned back
to OS, after the ibserver quit. It's ok, because memory managment under NT is
process based. But, after ending a connection ( an so ending a thread from the
ibserver process) the allocated memory for this thread should be flagged as free
from the ibserver process. And next time the ibserver processs use memory, he first
should use the "free flagged" memory. In my case, it seems, he don't.
Another effect: Holger Klemt told me to try the setting:
SERVER_WORKING_SIZE_MAX 100000 in the ibconfig. But that take no affect.
Somewhere i have read, that the caching of metadata is not limited by the ibserver-process.
Maybe, that is the trend?
> If I knew why this was happening, I would fix it immediately. With your helpNo doubt about that! ;-)
> to isolate your condition this could be resolved rather quickly.
> What I would like is for you to make a BDE and an IBO sample app thatIn our company there are about 120 programs and 35 user.
> mirrors the same thing you are seeing so that I can see it. If I cannot get
> this to duplicate there is very little I can accomplish without spending
> incredible amounts of time chasing my own tail. Don't try to get it super
> simple at first because it is most likely a combination of things
> interacting. I don't care how big the apps are, I have good bandwidth.
Each user ist running average 4 or 5 programs (and so, connections).
It can't say, which program/connection make this effect.
What can i do? I can't send you all programs and data. My boss will
kill me. ;-) I will try to look for a program, that make this effect. But
that's hard to do. Many programs, perhaps "synergie" effects? I will try it,
keep your finges crossed for me!
Thanks, that you don't let me stand out in the cold!
Best regards, Rolf