RE: standby config --> FAL_SERVER / FAL_CLIENT

From: Prem Khanna J <jprem_at_kssnet.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:56:08 +0900
Message-ID: <004001c3f124$92789ac0$dd00a8c0@prem>

Hi Jonathan , it' me again.

I need this standby database config. with maximum protection mode for a new system. so the transactions will be very less ( say 100 per day .. but expected to increase in future) and no PL/SQL work done .

will i be safe (from performance point of view) if don't use any PL/SQL ?!

how do u usually overcome this overhead ? Do you go for someother mode offered by data guard ? can u plz shed some light on this Jonathan ?

Regards,
Prem.

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk
>>
>>This factor of 3 was a single example,
>>not a general conclusion.
>>
>>The first important point that made this visible
>>was that the sample code was committing inside
>>a fast pl/sql loop, and contrary to the statement
>>in the manuals about sessions waiting for lgwr,
>>a session does not generally wait for a commit
>>(log file sync) inside a pl/sql construct.
>>
>>However, if the pl/sql loop includes a distributed
>>transaction or (it seems) has a standby database in
>>maximum protection mode, the session suddenly
>>DOES wait for a log file sync - and this has a big
>>impact on performance.
>>
>>Once this factor has appeared, any extra time
>>for the commit is simply down to network latency
>>and time to write at the far end (for as many far
>>ends as there may be) - the big issue is that you
>>moved from not waiting for commit to waiting
>>for commit.
>>
>>Regards
>>Jonathan Lewis

---

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

---

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wed Feb 11 2004 - 22:56:08 CST