Kirti,
I am assuming you are still looking for some answers
to this. ( Allright I am late ..but it is because my
network is slow..;) )
Having done several conversions on HP from 32 bit
oracle to 64 bit I think I can safely say 64 bit is
the way to go.
There is a paper titled ORACLE 64-bit ADVANTAGES on
metastink under system admin and platforms/misc. and
it talks about HP also.
I can't say I got 300% (??!) improvement but I found
that apart from increase in memory addressing( Oh
yeah.!..a whole lot of it ), utilities like exp and
sqlldr ran atleast 30% faster on 64 bit. Could be the
way the executables addressed the memory, I really
don't know.
As to recreate instead of migrate I think the poster
got the OS mixed up with oracle. On HP if you are on
10.20 and going to 11.0 then the OS need to be
completely wiped out and reinstalled or ORACLE will
have a fit. I think it has got to do with some library
functions which didn't change or had some different
name on 11.0 and they get linked to oracle exe. When I
contacted OTS in 1999 dec. they told me the same and I
did some research on it and found that to be true. So
we wiped out the 10.20 and reinstalled the 11.0 64 bit
and everything went smooth.
HTH
Cheers,
RS
- "Deshpande, Kirti" <kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.com>
wrote:
> All,
>
> Following is from the LazyDBA list.
> Any 64-byters on this list seen this ??? If so, can
> you please share you
> experience and findings?
> Thanks.
> - Kirti
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: LazyDBA.com Discussion
>
>
> Don't upgrade, export, recreate the database and
> import or you will not get
> full benefit from 64 bit. At one client we saw a
> 300% performance boost on
> some processes by rebuilding the instance from
> scratch verses just
> migrating.
>
> Mike
>
> ----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: AULTM_at_tusc.com;
>
>
> Mike,
> Can you please elaborate, as to how exactly going
> 64-bit this way helped
> boost the performance by 300%?
>
> Don't you think that export/import helped some by
> eliminating chained rows
> (if any), reducing or eliminating block level
> fragmentation, reducing
> blevels in indexes etc.
> Or there weren't any of these issues to be
> concerned with.
>
> Just curious.. as we are pondering on such a move
> in the very near
> future...
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Kirti
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:00 PM
> To: 'Deshpande, Kirti'
>
>
> Nope, they migrated the instance, then exported,
> dropped and imported back
> into the migrated instance as part of the testing
> process, then used the
> export to build a new 64 bit database. When the
> performance of the old
> migrated but rebuilt database was tested against the
> new imported database
> the processes that did many IOs, such as updates,
> took up to 300% longer on
> the migrated instance.
>
> Both instances where on the same host going against
> the same disk array. the
> initialization parameters where identical. The
> migrated instance showed
> nearly 300-400 percent more consistant gets for the
> same process leading me
> to believe it is some type of internal byte splicing
> technique being used to
> emulate the 64 bit environment in the migrated
> instance while true 64 bit is
> used in a "new" 64 bit instance.
>
> Exporting the migrated database, dropping the
> instance and recreating then
> importing brought the performance back in line with
> the other instance.
> really odd.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ---- Back to Oracle-L :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:34 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> I think that Oracle is actually concentrating on the
> 64 bit now. Especially
> on HP. Personally I would go 64 bit. There seems
> to be no specific bugs
> that are 64 bit related (although I would do your
> own research on that one).
> Therefore, all that would happen is that you would
> be potentially limiting
> yourself by going 32-bit whereas sky's the limit if
> you choose the other
> route.
>
> -
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
> http://www.orafaq.com
> --
> Author: Deshpande, Kirti
> INET: kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.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).
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Sakthi , Raj
INET: rajan_sakthi_at_yahoo.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).
Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 15:18:32 CST
