Sean Gleann wrote: >Hello Peter >Problem solved!
Excellent. Thanks to Peter Hunkeler. >Your idea(s) regarding the SMF30 record analysis eventually led me to >reproducing the test environment used by the developer so that I could run the >tests myself. This is what IBM (and other vendors) also does and recommends. Try to reproduce the problem yourself. >One look at the command being used showed what the problem was - there was a >parametrised upper limit of 768M on the memory to be used. The developer had >completely missed this information. Bumping the parm value to 1G was enough to >get the test through, Ouch! So despite all the tuning and resizing attempts, it was the application itself which restrict itself too much using a too small value... >... but I'm still arguing for all such limits to be removed - "let the system >sort itself out, don't try and 'second guess' things..." >Such a simple thing, spotted by a different set of eyes being used, but that's >frequently the root cause in problems such as this, I find. Agreed! I also find that some weird problems are caused by our clients who develop their own applications. Sometimes I recommend - backout changes - attempt to recreate the problem - voila, problem resolved. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
