Comments for Siebel Tools http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog Siebel from my point of view Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:57:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 Comment on Siebel SQL Performance Analyzer by Administrator http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/2010/08/06/siebel-sql-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-191 Administrator Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:57:34 +0000 http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/?p=9#comment-191 Hi Josh, Thank you very much. I will try to keep adding to it. Thanks, George. Hi Josh,
Thank you very much. I will try to keep adding to it.

Thanks,
George.

]]> Comment on Siebel Performance Tuning by Administrator http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/2010/12/25/siebel-performance-tuning/comment-page-1/#comment-190 Administrator Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:56:39 +0000 http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/?p=37#comment-190 Hi Juan, Thanks for the comment. There is a lot of debate on the Max MTS = Min MTS. In Siebel 6 and < 7.5 the recommendation was to have them different, Min MTS being low enough to support the initial user load. That way new tasks would get created only as they are needed and there wasnt such an overhead creating all the tasks at startup. The recommendation now is to go with Max MTS = Min MTS, since the creation of a new task requires a call to the gateway and the gateway being a single point of failure thats a risk. So now there is a school of thought to go ahead and start up all the tasks you need initially (even with the startup overhead) that way even if your gateway crashes (and you dont have a failover in place) your users wont notice an outage since if you calculated the Max Tasks correctly you would have all the tasks you need already running. There definitely is wastage in this process but it mitigates the risk of a gateway failure. Rgds, George. Hi Juan,
Thanks for the comment. There is a lot of debate on the Max MTS = Min MTS. In Siebel 6 and < 7.5 the recommendation was to have them different, Min MTS being low enough to support the initial user load. That way new tasks would get created only as they are needed and there wasnt such an overhead creating all the tasks at startup.
The recommendation now is to go with Max MTS = Min MTS, since the creation of a new task requires a call to the gateway and the gateway being a single point of failure thats a risk. So now there is a school of thought to go ahead and start up all the tasks you need initially (even with the startup overhead) that way even if your gateway crashes (and you dont have a failover in place) your users wont notice an outage since if you calculated the Max Tasks correctly you would have all the tasks you need already running. There definitely is wastage in this process but it mitigates the risk of a gateway failure.
Rgds,
George.

]]> Comment on Siebel SQL Performance Analyzer by Josh http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/2010/08/06/siebel-sql-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Josh Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:35:57 +0000 http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/?p=9#comment-165 Hi George I like your blog, great content and very useful. Thanks very much! Josh Hi George

I like your blog, great content and very useful. Thanks very much!

Josh

]]> Comment on Siebel Performance Tuning by Juan Breuer http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/2010/12/25/siebel-performance-tuning/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Juan Breuer Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:50:10 +0000 http://seamarvelsolutions.com/blog/?p=37#comment-122 Hi George, Nice Job your are doing. About the rules.. I'm not so sure about the rule Max MTS = MIN Mts, because if you do a reconfiguration of the OM, It cant spawn the new process because there are no slots free. In the mean time the old ones are waiting to be closed after all the conections close. Regards, Juan. Hi George,

Nice Job your are doing. About the rules.. I’m not so sure about the rule Max MTS = MIN Mts, because if you do a reconfiguration of the OM, It cant spawn the new process because there are no slots free. In the mean time the old ones are waiting to be closed after all the conections close.

Regards,
Juan.

]]>