DB2 - Problem description
| Problem IT10651 | Status: Closed |
RDC: PERF: THROUGHPUT VERY LOW (98% DEGRADED) WHEN DIAGLEVEL IS 4 | |
| product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / 970 - DB2 | |
| Problem description: | |
Setting dbm cfg param diaglevel to 4 is expected to have worse
performance than diaglevel 3, but the performance in v98fp3
diaglevel 4 resembles that of an nbuild and is very very low.
There is a message that is dumped to db2diag.log very
frequently:
2010-10-26-15.53.24.315615-240 I3145388E547 LEVEL: Info
PID : 25191 TID : 46916826032448 PROC :
db2sysc
INSTANCE: aaa NODE : 000 DB : DTW
APPHDL : 0-69 APPID: *LOCAL.aaa.101026195321
AUTHID : AAA
EDUID : 80 EDUNAME: db2agent (AAA)
FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, trace services, sqlt_logerr_data (secondary
logging function), probe:50
MESSAGE : DEBUG: javaDebug init
DATA #1 : Hexdump, 1 bytes
0x00002AABACBEF1FB : 00
I created a gbuild which comments out this line in
/vbs/engn/sqri/sqlriudf.C :
sqlt_logerr_data("DEBUG: javaDebug init",
&fmpParms.javaDebug,
sizeof(fmpParms.javaDebug),
SQLT_FFSL_INF);
The performance of my gbuild in diaglevel 4 is very close to our
nightly runs which run at diaglevel 3. So vanilla s101021 had a
TPS of 27.59 (run number lnx05_7741) as opposed to my gbuild's
TPS of 2338.2 (run number lnx05_7739)
Is this message important to be dumped to db2diag.log or can it
be logged less frequently or removed altogether? | |
| Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * NA * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * See Error Description * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Change diaglevel to 3 * **************************************************************** | |
| Local Fix: | |
Change diaglevel to 3 | |
| Solution | |
NA | |
| Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
| Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 12.08.2015 05.11.2015 05.11.2015 |
| Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
| Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) | |
| 9.7.0.11 |
|