Garbage data

shrey3a · Post by **shrey3a** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:38 pm

Hi,

We have a job which aborts due to garbage data trailing behind one or 2 columns ..as it appears in director log. But when we reset the job and run it ..it just go fine.

The only reason I see is IPC stage , when i remove IPC stage as we done in many other job it runs fine. Is it happening due to memory leak/ time out property , how we can avoid it without removing the IPC stage.

the data appaers to be like 1234#some funny chrs......

Thanks,

DSguru2B · Post by **DSguru2B** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:43 pm

Did you try increasing the buffer size? How huge is your record?

shrey3a · Post by **shrey3a** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:47 pm

DSguru2B wrote:Did you try increasing the buffer size? How huge is your record?

its 128...how much we can increase is there any formula for it or its an hit and trial methiod.

Regards,

DSguru2B · Post by **DSguru2B** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:52 pm

Thats by default. That number specifies a block of memory to hold the data. One block for writing to and the other is for reading. So if you put 128, that means 256 is specified. So I would say increase that. Let it be a multiple of the complete record size + a few bytes.

shrey3a · Post by **shrey3a** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:54 pm

DSguru2B wrote:Did you try increasing the buffer size? How huge is your record?

Just checked its 512 .....will it make a difference on performance of jobs...as we have nearly 300 job batch cycle and more than 200 jobs might be using IPC stage...... if we make it to 1024 ...changing in env variable for ipc buffer

Thanks

shrey3a · Post by **shrey3a** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:59 pm

DSguru2B wrote:Thats by default. That number specifies a block of memory to hold the data. One block for writing to and the other is for reading. So if you put 128, that means 256 is specified. So I would say increase that. Let it be a multiple of the complete record size + a few bytes.

So I have seventeen fields with length total of 144 i.e. sum of length of all fields so u suggest i may increase it to 200 ......

Thanks

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:18 pm

The buffer size is specified in KBytes, not in bytes.