Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Database Servers
DB2InformixIngresMS SQLOraclePervasive.SQLPostgreSQLProgressSybase
Desktop Databases
FileMakerFoxProMS AccessParadox
General
General DB TopicsDatabase Theory
Related Topics
Java Development.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentMore Topics ...

Database Forum / Informix Topics / October 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Shared memory segment message on intialisation

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Neil Truby - 27 Oct 2004 22:33 GMT
7.31 UD8 on SCO Unixware 7.1.1

Our customer has just upgraded from UC6 -> UD8, and is seeing these shared
memory segment messages at start-up time.  We've not seen them before on UD8
on other OSs (AIX or Linux).

has anyone else seen them, know what they mean, know if they are important
or know hopw to avoid them?

thanks
Neil
======================================================================
Wed Oct 27 13:42:50 2004

13:42:50  Event alarms enabled.  ALARMPROG = '/usr/informix/etc/log_full.sh'
13:43:05  DR: DRAUTO is 0 (Off)
13:43:05  Contiguous shared memory segment allocation failed at 0xbfbc8000.
Allocation retried at 0xb4400000.
Check SHMBASE is consistent with the value in $INFORMIXDIR/etc/onconfig.std.
Consider using a different SHMBASE value in your ONCONFIG file.
If shared memory segments are not allocated in increasing address order,
memory block allocation performance may degrade.

13:43:05  Contiguous shared memory segment allocation failed at 0x6c144000.
Allocation retried at 0xb3c00000.
Check SHMBASE is consistent with the value in $INFORMIXDIR/etc/onconfig.std.
Consider using a different SHMBASE value in your ONCONFIG file.
If shared memory segments are not allocated in increasing address order,
memory block allocation performance may degrade.

13:43:05  Dynamically allocated new message shared memory segment (size
1616KB)
13:43:05  Contiguous shared memory segment allocation failed at 0x6c144000.
Allocation retried at 0xb3400000.
Check SHMBASE is consistent with the value in $INFORMIXDIR/etc/onconfig.std.
Consider using a different SHMBASE value in your ONCONFIG file.
If shared memory segments are not allocated in increasing address order,
memory block allocation performance may degrade.

13:43:05  Dynamically allocated new message shared memory segment (size
1616KB)
13:43:05  Contiguous shared memory segment allocation failed at 0x6c144000.
Allocation retried at 0xb2c00000.
Check SHMBASE is consistent with the value in $INFORMIXDIR/etc/onconfig.std.
Consider using a different SHMBASE value in your ONCONFIG file.
If shared memory segments are not allocated in increasing address order,
memory block allocation performance may degrade.

13:43:05  Dynamically allocated new message shared memory segment (size
1616KB)
13:43:06  IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UD8     Software Serial
Number AAC#J874023
13:43:06  IBM Informix Dynamic Server Initialized -- Shared Memory
Initialized.
13:43:06  Physical Recovery Started.
13:43:06  Physical Recovery Complete: 0 Pages Restored.
13:43:06  Logical Recovery Started.
13:43:09  Logical Recovery Complete.
0 Committed, 0 Rolled Back, 0 Open, 0 Bad Locks

13:43:10  Dataskip is now OFF for all dbspaces
13:43:10  Checkpoint Completed:  duration was 0 seconds.
13:43:10  Checkpoint loguniq 622486, logpos 0x380018

13:43:10  On-Line Mode
13:43:10  Affinitied VP 5 to phys proc 5
13:43:11  Affinitied VP 1 to phys proc 2
13:43:11  Affinitied VP 4 to phys proc 4
13:43:11  Affinitied VP 7 to phys proc 7
13:43:11  Affinitied VP 6 to phys proc 6
13:43:11  Affinitied VP 3 to phys proc 3
13:48:39  Checkpoint Completed:  duration was 0 seconds.
1
Neil Truby - 27 Oct 2004 22:59 GMT
I shoul add that I've checked the SHMBASE and stune kernel parameters for
the server and they all accord with the release notes.

> 7.31 UD8 on SCO Unixware 7.1.1
>
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> 13:48:39  Checkpoint Completed:  duration was 0 seconds.
> 1
Jonathan Leffler - 30 Oct 2004 05:55 GMT
> I shoul add that I've checked the SHMBASE and stune kernel parameters for
> the server and they all accord with the release notes.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>has anyone else seen them, know what they mean, know if they are important
>>or know hopw to avoid them?

I dunno whether it is still valid, but it used (back in the early 90s)
to be necessary to ensure that the maximum shared memory segment size
was an exact multiple of 4 MB because the o/s would allocate shared
memory segments on 4 MB boundaries, and to achieve contiguous
addresses, therefore, the shared memory segments had to be (a multiple
of) 4 MB each.  This applied to SCO Xenix and earlier versions of Unix
(and the mighty 386 or 486); I've no idea whether it applies to
Unixware running on Pentium class CPUs.

>>======================================================================
>>Wed Oct 27 13:42:50 2004
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>
>>[...snippage...the server appeared to come up...]

Signature

Jonathan Leffler                   #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.