DB2 - Problem description
Problem IT22607 | Status: Closed |
THE 512 BYTES MISALIGMENT DURING LOB PROCESSING MIGHT INTRODUCE CONTENTION ON GPFS. | |
product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / B10 - DB2 | |
Problem description: | |
During processing of LOB files DB2 might sent "non-aligned memory buffer" to do GPFS Direct I/O. This requires xw lock instead of sx lock on GPFS level. Multiple sx locks can be obtained concurrently this is why so many threads are contending. As the consequence we might see slow performance together with high GPFS CPU usage. Issue might be triggered by various DB2 functions, therefore way of identifying this is observation on GPFS level (for locks in subject). Sample symptom is mutex observed in the traces: MMFS MUTEX: Waiting on condvar 0xF1000002DAB7BE10 (BrlObjCondvar): waiting for fetch-n-lock to complete MMFS MUTEX: Waiting for mutex 0xF1000002DAB7B628 (InodeCacheObjMutex) MMFS MUTEX: Awakened after wait for ThMutex 0xF1000002DAB7B628 (InodeCacheObjMutex) err 0 MMFS BRL: brLockM retry 4: inode 349569 snap 0 range 0x0000004A5FEA6800-0x0000004A5FEA6FFF startRangeSeq 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF mode xw MMFS TSTM: crtTestRange enter: range 0x0000004A5FEA6800-0x0000004A5FEA6FFF mode xw This APAR fix is to change DB2 code to send correctly aligned buffers. As the consequence, the GFPS contention issue is not observed with fix in place. | |
Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * ALL * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * See Error Description * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Upgrade to Db2 11.1 Mod 2 Fix Pack 2 or higher * **************************************************************** | |
Local Fix: | |
Solution | |
Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
BUG-Tracking | |
forerunner : IT16916 follow-up : | |
Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 02.10.2017 24.10.2017 24.10.2017 |
Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) |