Memory consumption by DataStage for processing

Post questions here relative to DataStage Server Edition for such areas as Server job design, DS Basic, Routines, Job Sequences, etc.

Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy

Post Reply
vnspn
Participant
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:42 am

Memory consumption by DataStage for processing

Post by vnspn »

Hi,

We would like to know, when DataStage Server is being installed, would we need to specify the "amount of memory value" that DataStage Server can use for processing a Job.

Lets say if the server box has 8 GB of memory, would DataStage make use of all avaialble memory while processing a Job?

For instance, we transform 10 million records of data from a Flat file source to an Oracle table in a Job. At the time of execution, DataStage process a bunch of records at a time (i.e., 'X' no. of records per sec it shows on the performance statistics). What determines the DataStage to decide to process 'X' no. of records at a time? Is it based on the memory available on the Server?

Also at any point in time of processing, where does DataStage hold all these records? Is it on the Server's RAM?

Thanks.
ray.wurlod
Participant
Posts: 54607
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by ray.wurlod »

DataStage will request what memory it needs. In general data are not held in memory, but streamed through the job. Exceptions include blocking stages, such as the Aggregator and Sort stages. If the requested (virtual) memory can not all be allocated, then you are likely to receive a "heap allocation failed" error.

Records/second is a totally meaningless metric in the context of this question. Ignore it.

The number of records at a time is influenced only by the buffer sizes that you set if you enable row buffering.

Note that this answer applies only to server jobs; a completely different answer applies to parallel jobs.
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
Post Reply