go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 30, 2017 My first guess was that it concerned Application Monitor alerts only, while I was mostly interested in Health monitor sensors reading.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 29, 2017 Thank you, Eduard.Is it possible to do something with an "old" Cache 2015.1?I have no objection to upgrade, but according to our previous experience the movement of customers' sites will not be quick. So I'd like to find a solution which will be useable from 2015.1 to 2018.2.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 24, 2017 Hi John and Roman,Although the answer is accepted, it seems that JOBEXAM can only help recognize that DBREST is still running, so the initial question about the completion time expectations would hardly be answered this way.Roman, only your previous experience can help answering your question. BTW, "weakness" of your host as you described it can't be a reason of slow DB restoration as DBREST is single-threaded utility and mostly i/o bound one. The reasons for slowing DBREST down are usually: slow disk subsystem and/or slow LAN connection to network resource where .cbk files are stored.Entry level SAS RAID and 1000BaseT LAN usually provide 40-50MB/s speed on DB restoration.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 23, 2017 The result set of Config.MapGlobals:List query can be restricted to the global of interest (pGlb) records if change the Names search criteria in Execute call to: set sc = rset.Execute(pNsp,pGlb_","_pGlb_"(*")Snippet's code was amended.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 13, 2017 ...and spread over documentation...Or undocumented, as it is in cases #3 and #4. It seems that it's possible to form a simple rule whether you can use a private variable: if you can consider its name to be evaluated at compile time, you can, otherwise - no:1) Indirection: variable names (or expression that contains them) are evaluated at runtime.2) Xecute: similar to #1. In contrast, $xecute() arguments names can be evaluated at compile time.3) Child process's symbol table filled with switch#2=1: runtime. In contrast, job's entry arguments names can be evaluated at compile time.4) %SYS.ProcessQuery is dynamically querying other process's symbol table, so, run time only.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 13, 2017 Hi Robert,There are at least two additional exceptions:3. JOB command with passing the symbol table to the spawned jobSee http://docs.intersystems.com/latest/csp/docbook/DocBook.UI.Page.cls?KEY=...When switch#2=1, only public variables of parent process are passed to its child.4. Class %SYS.ProcessQuery, query VariableByPid() (or $zutil(88,2,Pid,Variable) for old schoolers)Only public variables of another process can be queried.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 7, 2017 $ ccontrol qlist CACHE1^/opt/cache1^2015.1.4.803.0.16768^running, since Fri Sep 15 18:44:33 2017^cache.cpf^1972^57772^62972^ok^ CACHE2^/opt/cache2^2015.1.4.803.0.16768^running, since Mon Jul 24 08:43:47 2017^cache.cpf^56773^57773^62973^ok^ CACHE3^/opt/cache3^2015.1.4.803.0.16768^down, last used Thu Jul 27 18:02:03 2017^cache.cpf^56774^57774^62974^^ Windows analogue exists as well.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 7, 2017 It depends.If you don't care about uniqueness of this hash, you can use any algorithm (the quicker the better, MD5Hash or even CRC32) and store your index like normal non-unique one. On calculated hash match to already stored (indexed) hash value you just compare the correspondent strings to separate real matches from the collisions. Maybe it's worth to use whole string as an index for reasonably short strings.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 6, 2017 You can calculate a hash for each string and index this hash value. If use pure COS for index building, you can find duplicates earlier, just during index building, without quiering the index afterwards.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Nov 3, 2017 Hi Mikhail, you've done a really nice job!I'm just curious, why:We don’t care about output to a file.Wasn't it easier to parse mgstat's output file?
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 31, 2017 Just a quick note: the last sample with $tr removes _all_ listed chars, so all blanks (rather than leading, trailing and repeationg) would be removed as well.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 31, 2017 Stuart,Your solution is really beatiful. As to speed, it's just a bit slower than the solution #1 (based on $replace) and ~ twice quicker than my solution #2 (pure Mumps). That's a real pearl to add to my snippets collection, thank you!
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 25, 2017 You may need to make the CACHELIB database R/W to save the edit to %ZSTART No, because %Z* routines are stored in CACHESYS database. The only exception is `%ZEN.*`. You may want to check `do SHOW^%NSP` output: Routine name/Range Type Dirset Target directory ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... [%SYS/:%Z) INT c:\intersystems\cache\mgr\cachelib\ [%Z:%ZEN.) INT c:\intersystems\cache\mgr\ [%ZEN.:%ZEN/) INT c:\intersystems\cache\mgr\cachelib\ ... =============================================================================== ... a square bracket [] means that left or right margin is inclusive, while a parenthesis means that the margin is exclusive...
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 20, 2017 Yet another variant of quotes duplicator (pure Mumps): dupP(str) quit:str'[$c(34) str new strdup,j set strdup="" for j=1:1:$length(str,$char(34))-1 set strdup=strdup_$piece(str,$char(34),j)_$char(34,34) quit strdup_$piece(str,$char(34),j+1) Quick testing showed that the quickest variant is my initial $$dupquote(), $$dupocc() is very close (5-15% slower), $$dupP() took 3d place (2 times slower), $$QT() is the slowest (not surprise as it uses recursion). It was interesting to find that the good quality of $replace() implementation allowed it to beat $zutil(144,) "system" function. While I'll keep using it, analyzing Vitaliy's code I've found the error in my own $$dupP().
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 17, 2017 Thank you for taking part, Vitaliy!BTW, your second solution should be amended: dupocc(str) ; after the macro substitution quit $s(str'[$c(34):str,1:$e($zutil(144,1,str),2,*-1)) otherwise it would destroy numbers: USER> set b=1 set c=$e($zutil(144,1,b),2,*-1) zwrite b,c b=1 c=""
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 16, 2017 Both had the need to pass along data by references as memory was very limitedand processors were incredible slow (compared to today).Robert, thank you for this quick historical excursion!Just adding 2c: it seems that the reasons to introduce pointers were deeper than just resources saving:it was the reasonable way to pass arrays back and forth,it was the reasonable way to return several values from functions/subroutines.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 9, 2017 You can find all levels and badges at the Global Masters Advocate Hub hereThis link seems to be broken.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 2, 2017 Only the web app's home page was requested, without any attempt to log on, so it didn't write any audit record. In contrast, any attempt to connect 1972/tcp always wrote a "Logon Failure" record described as "Authentication broken" or something like this.
go to post Alexey Maslov · Oct 2, 2017 It all depends.Attempts to connect a port or even to connect a super-server using potentially wrong password spoil Cache Audit with nasty records, so if they are done frequently those records can easilly overfill the Audit.Several years ago I faced the similar problem in opposite direction: how to let load balancer recognize Cache instances which are no longer alive to remove them from its list. Load balancer was to distribute super-server connections as well as web based ones. The idea of polling 1972/tcp was dropped as soon as I recognized its impact on auditting. So I used a web app which allowed unauthenticated access for the simple reason that if 57772/tcp port had reasonably answered, 1972/tcp should be accessible as well. There were no firewall(s) between the load balancer and application servers, therefore I was sure that there were no external "forces" that could prevent them from answering. The solution was deployed on a couple of different load balancers and showed its robustness on a farm of 4-7 application servers and 1000-3000 concurrent users.
