Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

From: <>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:22:38 -0800
Message-ID: <>

<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

size=2>"broken toilet of a man?"
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

certainly an interesting phrase. We should call William Safire...
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff


style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">   <FONT face=Tahoma
  size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Mohan, Ross   []Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:00   PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:   OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
  Another way of looking at it: 
  So lets say the 12 computer configuration were to have a   failure in some *single* wintel box every 7 days ..   who cares!! The shared nothing architecture underlying   the system load BALANCES users to machines which are   up .. no user would even notice ... This is how you   hit "Five Nines" at superlow cost points.   This is particularly useful for rolling new machines into and   out of the server set to SCALE AS NEEDED...instead of   buying "BIG IRON" that sits and waits for the once a   year spike in usage.  (But you get to pay for it   every day!) Just as sites like DELL who will trippple   their site size for xmas than return to fewer machines afterwards.    

  BUCKETS OF Money saved on operational costs ( server   contracts, electricity etc ... )  and all users   served all the time.  Let's not even TALK about   the savings on "POWER UNITS" :) (Larry, you broken <FONT   size=2>toilet of a man!)
  Low concurrency numbers are historically due too poor   configuration (the problem is in the application 80%   of the time)...just 'cus someone doesn't know how to   write an app doesn't mean it can't be done.   Oh, and this just in, News Fans:
  The idea that it requires a highly skilled, highly trained,   expensive DBA to go create a table is stupid ... I'll   get a 7 year old to do it in a few clicks when he gets   home from school .... while the database is tuning itself, and I am   out studying for me new technical skills...Yay!   

  -----Original Message----- From:
  Jesse, Rich [<A
  href="">]   Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:42 PM <FONT   size=2>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <FONT   size=2>Subject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows   Actually, not that it matters from what I can tell, but Oracle   is tops if you consider clustered vs.   non-clustered.  It seems that Oracle doesn't even <FONT   size=2>have tests for clustered systems.  I wonder what happened to the   VLDB tests in the huge DEC/Compaq Alpha   cluster?   As far as SQL
  (pronounced: "SQueaL") Server "blown the doors off", there are   factors that TPC does not consider.  First, is   reliability.  According to Oracle Magazine,   Jan/Feb 2001, p38, "...a 12-computer configuration from <FONT   size=2>Microsoft, such as that used in recent TPC-C benchmarks, is estimated   to experience a catastophic failure once every 7.5   days, according to Microsoft's own estimates."    Granted, the quote is from Oramag, but I've heard the   same from other "Industry Sources".     I know of a specific implementation where the NT database   servers would dog and/or crash when approximately 500   concurrent users were attached (note: "attached"   <> "active") to the database.  The decision was made to dump   NT for DB serving and go with a major (HP or Sun or   IBM) flavor of Unix for it's scalability and   reliability.   Second,
  when was the last time you needed a 500K TPC-C from only 48 clients?   From a couple thousand, yes, but only 48?  And who's   gonna buy everyone in their company a $7500 desktop PC   with twin PIII-800s in them for clients? While those   numbers are specific to the top TPC-C Compaq/MS result, that's   how all these companies get their numbers. <FONT   size=2>  I'm not betting my job on TPC-C   numbers.  The numbers just don't reflect <FONT   size=2>real-life situations.   <FONT
  size=2>And I didn't even touch upon the potential locking problems on SQL   Server, or how it can do dirty reads...    :)   Just my $.02. 
  I need to go create some Oracle databases on HP/UX now.  ;)     Rich


  System/Database Administrator <FONT
  size=2>               Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA   -----Original Message----- Sent:
  Monday, February 05, 2001 09:56 To: Multiple   recipients of list ORACLE-L
  "NT still pants"...LOL!!! <FONT
  size=2>  It must be panting alot, It has BLOWN   THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in running   SQLServer on NT, as has DB2. <FONT
  size=2>  The general public ( and anyone else )   can wake up and smell the coffee at <<A   target=_blank href="">> .    Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure   performance.   Not
  interested in pure peformance?  Check out the Price/Performance   leaders. Oracle doesn't even
  SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our   illusions....   <FONT
  size=2>Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch?   Fine, check out ANY of the TPC
  benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't   even show up. <FONT
  size=2>  I mean, I like Oracle, too,   the time you turn on the multimode airconditioner, use   the 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the   object-oriented OnStar Satellite <FONT   size=2>navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the   other tools, trinkets, and
  toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance   that the twenty year old genius
  mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at <FONT   size=2>the light is going to kick your ass when the   light turns green.   But
  really, I still love Oracle. Warts and all. <FONT
  size=2>  Wanna drag? <FONT 
  size=2>  (heh heh heh) <FONT 
  size=2>    <FONT 

  -----Original Message----- Sent:
  Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:45 AM To: Multiple   recipients of list ORACLE-L
  I have actually been doing a fair it of reading on this since   the topic was brought up, and stand corrected, as   earlier mentioned. But I have to say guys that NT is   still fairly "pants" when it comes to handling multi <FONT   size=2>threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement but M$ still has a   lot of work to do on in my view. (only when you   compare this against UNIX)   <FONT
  size=2>Now don't get me wrong, there is enough traffic on this list about this   at the moment, so I dont want more bandwith added with   this thread if at all possible :) <FONT   size=2>  Thanks for the reply anyway Yong, I   think I will wait for a "good" book on Win2k to come   out (unless you know one?) before I go out and buy one (books <FONT   size=2>come out of my pocket as I am a sales person mostly).. NT as far as I   am concerned is now in Win2K's shadow, and I think   that is the way of the future for Windowze bound   people.   For all out
  there that have used NT and not Win2K - TRY IT.. Services are <FONT   size=2>handled a LOT better, file management and sharing.. All sorts of new   fun stuff to sink your teeth in to.. <FONT   size=2>  As a side note, for the last line of my   first paragraph - I also feel that UNIX cannot be   compared in anyway to Windows at this time. Windowze O/S's <FONT   size=2>are designed for pointy clicky people that prefer to look at a nice   GUI interface, and generally don't have the indepth   technical knowledge that a good UNIX sys admin does..     (If there any NT admins
  out there don't flame me, I have to deal with it every   day of my life...)   <FONT
  size=2>Regards   <FONT
  size=2>Mark   The views
  expressed here are soley those coming out of my coffee deprived   hungover mind.. They do not express those of my employers,   though I'm sure they agree :^)
  -----Original Message----- Sent:
  Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00 To: Multiple   recipients of list ORACLE-L
  Oracle on NT runs as
  for performance reasons (no more need   for shared memory....context switches are a LOT less   expensive, etc.)
  -----Original Message----- Sent:
  Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM To: Multiple   recipients of list ORACLE-L
  Hi, Mark,
  Async I/O is available on Windows, at least NT. It's not an   easy topic. If you think you
  already know enough about operating systems in general, I suggest   you read David Solomon's "Inside
  WindowsNT". For a lab test, launch Performance Monitor   on your NT box and look at the counters for Cache.   I'm not sure by "single thread management" whether you mean NT   can't have multiple processes or Oracle on NT runs as   one thread. The former is obviously <FONT   size=2>wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle Corporation and   the question as to why was
  asked on this forum before without an answer (without an <FONT   size=2>answer I can remember, that is).   Yong Huang   

  you wrote:
  Asynch I/O on a Windowze box? supresses a snigger...   

  To the best of my knowledge there are no Windows based system   that can take advantage of this, single thread   management can be enough a problem sometimes..   

  But, I may be wrong.. List?

  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -   only $35 a year!  <A target=_blank
  href="">   <<A target=_blank



  This message has been scanned for viruses with Trend Micro's   Interscan VirusWall. Received on Tue Feb 06 2001 - 14:22:38 CST

Original text of this message