Anyone have good experience leaving the HEALTH

Anyone have good experience leaving the HEALTH_MON on ?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RSL101@gmail.com - 25 Jan 2008 17:32 GMT

Dear DBAs.

I am wondering if anyone gotten good results leaving the,

Monitor health of instance and databases (HEALTH_MON) = ON

I find the default ON setting causes more problem than its worth, its
trying to run auto stats update and stuffs and got in the way of
normal operation. Is that your experience, if not what I am doing
wrong or not setting in conjunction to leaving HEALTH_MON on.

Thank you in advance.
Richard

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 25 Jan 2008 23:14 GMT

> Dear DBAs.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Thank you in advance.
> Richard

I have had the same experience and turned it off on every database.

Reply to this Message

RSL101@gmail.com - 25 Jan 2008 23:19 GMT

> <RSL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> I have had the same experience and turned it off on every database.

There must be some goodness it brings or why IBM does it ? Has anyone
gotten anything out of it ?

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 26 Jan 2008 06:27 GMT

><RSL101@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c133be78-f4a5-4ce9-b53f->625247331fb5@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>There must be some goodness it brings or why IBM does it ? Has anyone
>gotten anything out of it ?

The main reason IBM "does it" for marketing purposes. IBM can use it as a
"feature" to attract new customers by telling them it will make DB2 easy to
use and administer.

There is always a lot of pressure from marketing to get these new features
into DB2 as quickly as possible, even before they are perfected.

Eventually they will probably will improve it to the point where it is more
useful. Right now it is sort of a cross between a virus (running all kinds
of processes I don't want run) and spam (flooding logs, etc, with unwanted
messages).

Reply to this Message

bwmiller16@gmail.com - 26 Jan 2008 21:20 GMT

> ><RSL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c133be78-f4a5-4ce9-b53f->625247331__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of processes I don't want run) and spam (flooding logs, etc, with unwanted
> messages).

The First time I turned it on in production I got a call five minutes
later saying that DB2 was down...It panicked DB2 that quickly.

I like my own schedule for reorgs, runstats, backups, etc. since when
somebody says 'I have slow response' I KNOW that my runstats ran
properly and I don't have to look at DB2 Health Mon to see what has
occured.

Maybe for really small shops without a DB2 DBA it would be fine but
the first thing I do traditionally is say OFF to it and install my own
scripts that I know work on my schedule that won't bring down
anything.

-B

Reply to this Message

Stefano P. - 27 Jan 2008 10:09 GMT

> The main reason IBM "does it" for marketing purposes. IBM can use it as a
> "feature" to attract new customers by telling them it will make DB2 easy to
> use and administer.

I'm from DB2 for i5/OS world, where (from V5R2 and the introduction of
the new "SQE") statistics collection are rather simple to collect
(roughly speaking just change an OS system values to turn statistics
on/off) and other information about the use of the objects (table, view
and indexes are all objects, like everything you can manage in "AS/400)
are updated by OS itself, disregarding of sql; the job collecting
statistics runs at the lowest priority. At V5R4 there are a lot of
information about suggested indexes, sql statement executed and so on
available to "db administrator" (that usually is *system administrator*
itself ;-) that are automatically collected without the need (or
possibility) to turn them on or off.
Imo with SQE statistics collection its quite useful...

It *seems* to me that Ibm is trying to "export" some of this automatic
capabilities to other version of DB2: imvho the problem might arise when
they try to do this on "non Ibm" operating systems, as DB2 for i5/OS is
*built in* i5/OS but this is not true for other operating systems and
DB2 versions.

My two cents
Stefano P.

Signature

"Niuna impresa, per minima che sia,
può avere cominciamento e fine senza queste tre cose:
e cioè senza sapere, senza potere, senza con amor volere"
[Anonimo fiorentino, XIV sec.]

(togliere le "pinzillacchere" dall'indirizzo email ;-)

Reply to this Message

Jean-Marc Blaise - 26 Jan 2008 22:33 GMT

I am using it at many customer sites, I have opened some PMRs and refused to
turned it off (1st recommandation from the support, in version 8.2). In what
version are you exactly (and fixpack level) ? I think it really depends on
the quality of your application, so before starting it, do the basic stuff
for tuning a minimum you application. At 1 customer site, I got a call, 6
months later because of a lock escalation pb, so we had the opportunity to
make some analysis. If it is every 5 minutes, you'll never make it, it's
like driking a glass of water to cure your sickness...

Some counters are really stupid though, depending on your application, and I
wonder why IBM could not be more precise: for example, check about SHARED
sort memory usage that issues an alert at 0% because your application is not
using that memory area. I simply disabled this counter.

HTH, Jean-Marc

On Jan 25, 6:14 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> <RSL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> I have had the same experience and turned it off on every database.

There must be some goodness it brings or why IBM does it ? Has anyone
gotten anything out of it ?

Reply to this Message