| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Re[2]:Performance: NT vs. UNIX
We have 16+ NT boxes with dual CPUs. On all of the machines Oracle uses both
processors. NT, not Oracle, is responsible for splitting the load between
processors, which it does for all SMP aware applications. I would check with
your admin to see if he/she correctly setup the HAL for the dual CPU box. Adding
a processor and not updating the HAL results in the machine only using one CPU.
Todd Carlson
Oracle 8 Certified DBA
Bunge Corporation
|--------+----------------------->
| | "Kevin |
| | Kostyszyn" |
| | <kevin_at_dulcia|
| | n.com> |
| | |
| | 01/08/2001 |
| | 11:55 AM |
| | Please |
| | respond to |
| | ORACLE-L |
| | |
|--------+-----------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L | | <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com> | | cc: (bcc: Todd Carlson/STL/BungeCorp/Bunge/US) | | Subject: RE: Re[2]:Performance: NT vs. UNIX | >----------------------------------------------------------|
Interesting, we have a couple of NT servers, well not really servers just high end dell workstations. All of them except for one have dual CPU's and they way outperform the Single processor machine. This is a really stupid question, but did you set the parameter in the init.ora file so Oracle knows that there are two CPU's? Anyway, I have noticed that sometimes Oracle won't use both CPU's, but if you get a cup of coffee and sit down with performance monitor open you can watch and see if it does. Have good days Kev
-----Original Message-----
dgoulet_at_vicr.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:36 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Dan,
What I meant was currently available servers. We're using Compaq's
which
you can't get with less than 600MHZ in a single CPU configuration. I have
not,
but others may, seen Oracle allowed by NT to use more than one cpu at a
time.
We've both a 2 and single CPU servers that have been used as test machines
in
the past. Given the same data, same size SGA, and a similar disk layout the
2
processor machine did the same task in the same time, with the same results,
as
the single processor.
Dick Goulet
____________________Reply Separator____________________ Author: Dan.Hubler_at_Metavante.com Date: 1/8/2001 11:17 AM For my benefit.................
Number of CPUs?
Speed of CPUs?
Thanks.
CN=Dan Hubler/OU=DS/O=MICORP_at_vicr.com on 01/08/2001 10:25:36 AM
Sent by: dgoulet_at_vicr.com
Sent From the mail file of: Dan Hubler
To: Dan.Hubler_at_Metavante.com, Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
cc:
Dan,
OHHHHH I'm probably going to hate myself, but here goes.
From a performance point of view, and assuming that you can fit all or
most
of the data into the SGA so as to minimize IO traffic, I've found that NT
on a
current class server performs as well as an HP-UX single processor machine.
Where I've seen real performance improvement is in HP's capability to
address
more memory than NT and in our having a faster disk array on the HP's (EMC
storage) vs. the NT servers which use Clarion arrays. This gets into some
real
numbers when your doing large sorts since on HP they end up being done in
memory
whereas NT uses disk & raid being slower than mirrors, well you get the
drift.
Where I really prefer HP-UX vs. NT is in stability. Our HP boxes still run
for
months without a reboot or other undesirable condition. But the NT servers
still require occasional reboots, have occurances of GPF's, and the "blue
screen
of death". Also, NT still ships with that idiot DR.Watson.
Dick Goulet
____________________Reply Separator____________________ Author: Dan.Hubler_at_Metavante.com Date: 1/8/2001 7:00 AM
Used to have just a philosophical debate. Now we are getting into a debate about performance involving the NT bigots and the UNIX bigots.
The latest TPC benchmarks put out by Microsoft appear to have put alot of people in a tizzy about performance.
So............................
Please withhold the comments on ease of support, cost, etc. Just looking for performance comments.
Thanks.
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: Dan.Hubler_at_Metavante.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: dgoulet_at_vicr.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Kevin Kostyszyn INET: kevin_at_dulcian.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-LReceived on Mon Jan 08 2001 - 13:27:59 CST
 |
 |