From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Fri Sep 24 00:58:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8O5whT04526 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:58:43 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8O5whI04520 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:58:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id BF35372C7AA; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07612-81; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 35EA472C20C; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:04:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0f2601c4a202$7e8caf80$c701a8c0@sys3> From: "Yechiel Adar" To: "ORACLE-L" Subject: Fw: Effect of adding more CPUs Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:48:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-archive-position: 10052 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: adar76@inter.net.il Precedence: normal Reply-To: adar76@inter.net.il X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org I think that if you have 100% CPU usage you need to tune the application, but since you are already doing a rewrite adding CPU's seems in order. You probably will need to increase memory as well and you may find new bottlenecks, but I will try to solve one bottleneck in time. Yechiel Adar Mehish > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DENNIS WILLIAMS" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:34 PM > Subject: Effect of adding more CPUs > > > > List - We are trying to guess the benefit from doubling the CPUs on a > > server, from 2 to 4. Will this increase the performance or just result in > an > > I/O bottleneck? This server supports a production application and the > season > > of heavy usage is approaching. A development team is writing the > replacement > > application, so we are just looking at something to increase the capacity > > for this season. In addition to Oracle, a piece of the application runs on > > the server. > > During the production season, the CPU remains pegged at 100 percent > most > > of the 24-hour cycle. But if you look at the overall Oracle wait times, db > > file sequential read is about 80% of the wait. I have read Cary's book and > > suggested running a 10046 trace, but would like input on the best > approach. > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l