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: Mohan, Ross <>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>

is another defecatory device.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
My own
personal reference for correctness is Edwin Newman. (He is dead
now, and so provides little in the way of argument any more.)

<FONT face="Times New Roman"

  size=2>-----Original Message-----From:   []Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:16   PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:   OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

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

<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

  size=2>That's 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 <FONT     size=2>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 <FONT     size=2>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". <FONT     size=2>  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 <FONT     size=2>it's scalability and reliability. <FONT     size=2>  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 <FONT     size=2>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     <>
    .  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....  
    Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or     somesuch? Fine, check out ANY <FONT     size=2>of the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it     doesn't even show up.
      I mean, I like
    Oracle, too, the time you turn on the multimode <FONT     size=2>airconditioner, use the 12-way adjustable     power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented <FONT     size=2>OnStar Satellite navigational system, power     up the heated side view mirrors and all the other <FONT     size=2>tools, trinkets, and toys that make it my     personal favorite database, there *is* the chance <FONT     size=2>that the twenty year old genius mechanic in     the the tricked out Nova next to you at the light is     going to kick your ass when the light turns     green.   But really, I
    still love Oracle. Warts and all.       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 :)       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     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.   <FONT
    size=2>For all out there that have used NT and not Win2K - TRY IT.. Services     are handled a LOT better, file management and     sharing.. All sorts of new fun stuff to sink your     teeth in to..   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 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 <FONT     size=2>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...)       Regards <FONT
    size=2>  Mark <FONT
    size=2>  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 <FONT     size=2>need for shared memory....context switches <FONT     size=2>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 <FONT     size=2>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     wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle     Corporation and the question <FONT
    size=2>as to why was asked on this forum before without an answer (without     an 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 <FONT     size=2>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 - 14:36:24 CST

Original text of this message