CODEWITHSUNDEEP
lotus-noteslotus-dominolotuslotusscript
alteredego86
alteredego86

Reputation: 21

Lotus notes agent runs slower in server compared to development PC

I have an attendance recording system that has 2 databases, one for current, another for archiving. The server processes attendance records, and puts records marked completed into the archive. There is no processing done in the archive database.

Here's the issue. One of the requirement was to build a blank record for each staff every day, for which attendance records are put into. The agent that does this calls a few procedures and does some checking within the database. As of current, there are roughly 1,800 blank records created daily. On the development PC, processing each records takes roughly 2 to 3 seconds, which translates to an average of an hour and a half. However, when we deployed it on the server, processing each records takes roughly 7 seconds, roughly translates into 3 and a half hours to complete. We have had instances when the agent takes 4.5 to 5 hours to complete.

Note that in both instances, agents are scheduled. There are no other lotus apps in the server, and the server is free and idle most of the time (no other application except Windows Server and Lotus Notes). Is there anything that could cause the additional processing time compared on the development PC and the server?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 419

Answers (1)

Richard Schwartz
Richard Schwartz

Reputation: 14628

Your process is generating 1800 new documents every day, and you have said that you are also archiving documents regularly, so I presume that means that you are deleting them after you archive them. Performance problems can build up over time in applications like this. You probably have a large number of deletion stubs in the database, and the NSF file is probably highly fragmented (internally and/or externally).

You should use the free NotesPeek utility to examine the database and see how many deletion stubs it contains. Then you should check the purge interval setting and consider lowering it to the smallest value that you are comfortable with. (I.e., big enough so you know that all servers and users will replicate within that time, but small enough to avoid allowing a large buildup of deletion stubs.) If you change the purge interval, you can wait 24 hours for the stubs to be purged, or you can manually run updall against the database on the server console to force it.

Then you should run compact -c on the NSF file, and also run a defrag on the server disk volume where the NSF lives.

If these steps do improve your performance, then you may want to take steps in your code to prevent recurrence of the problem by using coding techniques that minimize deletion stubs, database growth and fragmentation.

I.e., go into your code for archiving, and change it so it doesn't delete them after archiving. Instead, have your code mark them with a field such as FreeDocList := "1". Then add a hidden view called (FreeDocList) with a selction formula of FreeDocList = "1". Also go into ever other view in the database and add & (!(FreeDocList = "1")) to the selection formulas. Then change the code adds the new blank documents, so that instead of creating new docs it just goes to the FreeDocList view, finds the first document, sets FreeDocList = "0", and clears all the previous field values. Of course, if there aren't enough documents the FreeDocList view, your code would revert to the old behavior and create a new document.

With the above changes, you will be re-using your existing documents whenever possible instead of deleting and creating new ones. I've run benchmarks on code like this and found that it can help; but I can't guarantee it in all cases. Much would depend on what else is going on in the application.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions