Networks

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Long term cache hits below 90%

0 helpful
6 replies

by errick.lewis

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is my question. I have a server configuration, Inter SBT2 daul PIII 1Gb Xeron processor, Mylex extreme Raid controller with 64 mb on board,harddisk are ultra 160 scsi,disk configuration is raid 5, running novell 5.1 latest support pack,driver and etc..., only modules running are OS and connectivity tcp/ip and ipx. All other application modules have been unloaded. This is a file and print server and is use during the hours of 8am -5pm. The server utilization is only 2-15% at any give time and is idle at night. I have change the memory with two different set of new memory one set 2mb, the other 3mb but this still does not bring the long term cache above 90%. The server does reconize the memory(3mb); Server Statistics are, allocated memory pool 2%,cache buffer memory 89%,movable memory 0% non-movable memory 0%, code and data 9% and total server memory 3mb (100%). Cache util is, short term 100%, short term dirty hits 100%, long term cache hits 85%,long term cache dirty hits 99%. I can't figure out what's going on with this server, and yes the memory is certified.
Does any one have a clue as to what's happing with this server.

6 replies

by pgm554

Is there a problem with the file server?(IE,slow,crashing)

If not ,Novell tunes itself over time.Just leave it alone.

If you are running NSS volumes (as opposed to traditional) ,then the tuning is different for NSS.

If your cache buffer in monitor is at 60% or above you are fine.

If you got issues and want to have somebody take a look at it, go to:
www.cpu-tech-services.com and shoot me an email.

I used to go to Cal State Hayward as a music major and am across the bay over in Woodside.

by errick.lewis

The server only abend once but some application modules were loaded. Those modules were unloaded. So in monitor long term cache hits if it's at 79% should I be woried ? How long does it take for this parmaeter to get above 90% ?

by duster52

Long Term Cache Hits defines how often the data that is requested already resides in server memory. This means that in your case 85% of the time the server was able to find the requested data in memory. The rest of the time it had to access the hard drive.

Novell recommends 128MB of RAM minimum for NW5.1 installed with standard NW products.

The short term fixed are to unload unneeded apps from memory and remove DOS from memory. The real solution is to add more memory.

by errick.lewis

This was not helpful and didn't answer my question. Please don't tell me to add more memory for a solution. I went form 1mb the initial configuration, to trying 2mb and 3mb all different sets of new memory. This did not solved the issue.
Please read the problem first before responding.

by pgm554

Your cache buffer memory is at 89%,that is well above the needed cache buffer memory needed to run the file server.

As for the dirty cache thing put this in your autoexec.ncf

SET Maximum Concurrent Disk Cache Writes = 500
SET Dirty Disk Cache Delay Time = 0.5
SET Maximum Concurrent Directory Cache Writes =100

Reboot,this is not a dynamic setting.

As for the memory thing ,you are documenting that you have total server memory of 3 mb?

That doesn't sound right.

If you are at the server console and type MEMORY and return,what is the number for the RAM?

And, to ask the question again,is there a performance problem with the file server?

If you need to ask questions of your peers,try going to a Novell user group meeting in Oakland.
There are good people there.

www.nobug.us/

by errick.lewis

The problem is not with dirty cache, its statistics show that its hits are 99%. There is no performance problem with this file server. The server memory is 3b when I type memory at the sever console. The question that I'm asking is why doesn't the long term cache hit go above 90% when I went form the initail 1mb, to 2mb or even 3mb of memory.

This discussion is closed to new replies.