"Mark" <m0****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5**************************@posting.google.c om...
le****@aptea.com (sql-db2-dba) wrote in message
news:<c8**************************@posting.google. com>...
When I did db2batch to benchmark a query, it performance details came
back with this reading ...
"High water mark for database heap = 4291373408"
Does this mean it would have caused memory thrashing at the server?
Did I over-allocate resources.
We just increased BuffPage to 16384 from its default of 1000. Pagesize
of the bufferpool was of course set to -1 so it would use the DBM cfg
parameter. But that is just 16MB of memory. Not even 10% of all the
total 4G memory.
Thanks in advance.
Bill
Since the buffpage is in pages, then 16384 x 4096 (assuming 4K page
size) is about 65 MB. If you page size is larger than 4K, then adjust
accordingly.
IBM seems to be discouraging the use of buffpage in version 8 (it is
hardly mentioned in the manuals anymore), and it is probably better to
alter the bufferpools sizes explicitly (use the immediate keyword to
take effect immediately).
Another reason why IBM is discouraging the use of BUFFPAGE is that it's
nearly useless (and very confusing) on systems that have more than one
bufferpool, as you then have two places to check/change bufferpool sizes --
the system catalogs for bufferpools with explicit sizes, and then BUFFPAGE
for those with implicit sizes (catalogs have npages set to -1).
--
Matt Emmerton