IDS Forum

Re: onmode -F is really working, or not???

Posted By: Martin Fuerderer
Date: Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 11:45 a.m.

In Response To: onmode -F is really working, or not??? (ALEXANDRE MARINI)

Hi,

there are still processes (2 in the case you mentioned) attached to that
SHM segment. Therefore it is not yet removed. Once these two processes
will have detached from the SHM segment, the SHM segment will disappear.
The "dest"(royed) in the status column means that the OS is waiting
with removing these segments until the last attached process has
detached.

It may be more difficult to find out, what these two processes are. The
"ipcs" system utility has several more options (which again may depend
on the OS or its version). Try them out to get more info on the SHM
segment. Usually it is not a problem to find out the creator process,
but this may well NOT be the processes still attached. The still
attached processes could be an "old" onbar_d, dbaccess or
onpload process still hanging around while still being attached
to the dead SHM segment (with the creator process, usually an
oninit process, long ago deceased). When the creator process
of the SHM segment does not exist anymore, then it should not affect the
running system (other than possibly occupying real RAM for no use).
But to finally get rid of the SHM segments, you have to find the still
attached processes and (probably) kill them ...

Regards,
Martin
--
Martin Fuerderer
IBM Informix Development Munich, Germany
Information Management

IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Martin Jetter
Board of Management: Erich Baier
Corporate Seat: Boeblingen, Germany
Reg.-Gericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

ids-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 09.10.2008 14:47:57:

> Hello everybody!
> I´d like to say thanks for the group members for all my previous
questions,
> I´ve solved almost all my problems here... kkkkkk
> My actual problem is: we´re doing an "onmode -F" every 2 hours using a
cron
> script.
> It´s actually working (it doesn´t record any error on online.log).
> But, monitoring my memory segments I´ve found something "strange"
> that I don´t
> know if is correct or not.
>
> My onstat -g seg shows:
>
> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 11.50.FC2 -- On-Line -- Up 2
> days 09:36:16
> -- 9057000 Kbytes
>
> Segment Summary:
> id key addr size ovhd class blkused blkfree
> 622610 52564801 44000000 7994368000 94116456 R 1951747 3
> 655379 52564802 220806000 512000000 6001696 V 125000 0
> 1048597 52564803 23f04e000 153600000 1801648 V 37500 0
> 1114134 52564804 2482ca000 153600000 1801648 V 37500 0
> 1179672 52564805 251546000 153600000 1801648 V 37500 0
> 1409047 52564806 25a7c2000 153600000 1801648 V 37464 36
> 1507353 52564807 263a3e000 153600000 1801648 V 10058 27442
> Total: - - 9274368000 - - 2236769 27481
> ------------------------------------------------
> So my ipcs command shouldn´t return only those segments with these
> keys above?
> Because my ipcs output returns several other lines, like this:
> ------ Shared Memory Segments --------
> key shmid owner perms bytes nattch status
> 0x00000000 393227 informix 600 196608 2 dest
>
> (notice that there´s no key, and the "status" column indicates dest, and
I
> don´t know if this segment is really not in use, or it´s a blocked one,
that
> my o.s. couldn´t remove from the memory....)
>
> If anyone has some knowledge about it, I´d be happy....
> Regards!
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>

Messages In This Thread

• onmode -F is really working, or not???
  ALEXANDRE MARINI -- Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 8:47 a.m.
  • Re: onmode -F is really working, or not???
    rroussey@comcast.net -- Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 9:45 a.m.
  • Re: onmode -F is really working, or not???
    Martin Fuerderer -- Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 11:45 a.m.
  • Re: onmode -F is really working, or not???
    Art Kagel -- Thursday, 9 October 2008, at 10:48 p.m.

IDS Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.