| Title: | DEC/EDI |
| Notice: | DEC/EDI V2.1 - see note 2002 |
| Moderator: | METSYS::BABER |
| Created: | Wed Jun 06 1990 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 3150 |
| Total number of notes: | 13466 |
Hi, I'm in contact with a support person at Oracle about a case were the storage area MISC_AREA_COMS_1 in the audit database did expand to a size 24 times bigger then expected. This was seen on a Alpha/VMS system with DEC/EDI V2.1C. I got a question if DEC/EDI use "dbkey" when attaching to the database. This could be done with "set transaction dbkey scope is attach" He explained to me that if dbkey is used RDB must make sure a key for a record is not re-used. This is true as long as *any* user is attached to the database. This could possible explain why the storage area did expand as DEC/EDI is not regulary restarted. I did a small test on a inhouse system wich indicated that the sizing of this storage area is correct (200 pages/1000 docs). On the customer system MISC_AREA_COMS_1 expanded to 60000 pages/12500 docs). Does DEC/EDI V2.1C on Alpha/VMS use "dbkey"? Thanks, Sven-Olof Klasson, CSC Sweden
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3099.1 | RULLE::KLASSON | Sven-Olof Klasson @GOO | Thu Apr 17 1997 11:02 | 16 | |
Answer from Mark.... From: EDIBUS::THOMPSON "Mark Thompson, EDI, REO2 F/D-2, dtn: 830-6363 16-Apr-1997 0954" 16-APR-1997 10:55:44.58 To: RULLE::KLASSON CC: Subj: RE: Is "dbkey" used with V2.1C audit database? Hi Sven-Olof, Yes we do use that. Our Database grows until the archive server re-generates itselft about every 12 hours. Then all the keys are released. All processes stay "attached" until DEC/EDI is shutdown and re-started. Mark | |||||
| 3099.2 | RULLE::KLASSON | Sven-Olof Klasson @GOO | Thu Apr 17 1997 13:08 | 7 | |
At the time when the storage did expand to 60000+ pages the archive server have had problems. For some reason it hanged and did not move any documents to the archive database. I guess the archive server also had not close access to the database. That could possible explain this. /Sven-Olof | |||||