Some time ago, I changed the configuration in SQL Runtime Statistic to "Turn on Stats code generation to gather stats at the Open and Close of a query". With this change, the CACHE base (cache/mgr/cache/) has grown a lot to reach 198GB.
Yesterday, I returned the configuration of SQL Runtime Statistic to the default which is "Turn off Stats code generation" and the cache base is no longer growing.
I would like to know if an encrypted caché database can run significantly slower than a normal "unencrypted" database, in a way that is noticeable to the end user (e.g. slower response time for most pages, especially the ones that rely on read/writing to globals).
I searched in Intersystems knowledge base and couldn't find anything related. I'm looking for possible before/after benchmarks.
On local environment, calling Foo() is instantaneous (a few ms). On production/test servers (which have much better hardware than local) calling this function is slow and take between 200 ms to 800 ms. Obviously starting a new job with "job" command take lot of time on those environments.
While I can see the benefits that $ZSTORAGE could have if used properly, I have not seen it used in the environments I have worked in. I was wondering if there are any developers that promote its usage.
If used properly, I would imagine it could be highly effective in maximizing free memory since some processes will never go over X amount, while others may very well need much more.
I have been asked to assist in the planning of the a new server for our database, which we will be changing operating systems from OpenVMS to Linux (RedHat distribution). However, its difficult to find material regarding what would be recommended, which is likely due to the database being proprietary.
In looking at the information provided below and hoping to decrease processing time, would anyone be able to recommend type of configuration we should have for the new Linux server? Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.
I am designing the software architecture for an Ensemble/Healthshare production to be deployed on Amazon AWS EC2 servers (2 mirrored m4.large - 4 vCPUs / 16 GiB RAM running RedHat Linux 3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64 and Healthshare for RHEL 64-bit 2016.2.1). It's a rather CPU-intensive production involving massive XSLT 2.0 transformations (massive both in terms of size and volume). I was wondering if anyone has experience configuring Ensemble productions on EC2 servers. My question or concern has to do with the following statement in the Ensemble documentation:
As I was going though and trying to figure out why our CACHE.dat has increased in size over the past 18 days, I found that EnsLib_HL7.Message is still retaining messages dating back to 2014 even though we have our purge set to 10 days. Has anyone else experienced this?
Want to perform SNMP performance monitoring of cache2010 on AIX 5.3. Since the SNMP service that comes with AIX does not support agentX, it cannot extend the support for cache database. Therefore, I plan to deploy net-snmp on AIX first, then enable agentX, and finally configure cache's subagent. Is this workable? Any documents? Thx!
Has anyone done any kind of integration with Dynatrace, which is a JVM transaction monitoring tool? Our organization uses this extensively with our Java and .Net applications and we wanted to know if it is even possible.
I have a ZEN page with nine tablepanes. Each tablepane queries a table in the same SQLServer db. I have a single SQLGateWay(odbc) to this SQLServer db. I need to get better performance when I query all nine table at the same time. Would my performance improve if I had nine SQLGateWays(nine odbc configurations/connections), one for each query? I would appreciate any and all suggestions for getting the very best performance when using SQLGateWays. Thank you.
In terms of general through-put design and long term support, I'm considering what would be a "best approach" for needing to create multiple batch files in a few different layouts from the same data-sets.