Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RAC problem, is gc_files_to_locks is needed?

RAC problem, is gc_files_to_locks is needed?

From: tomi wijanto <restomi_w_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20041021032050.29557.qmail@web52008.mail.yahoo.com>


Hi All,

I has oracle9i database with RAC using 2 nodes. The first time i used them, i activated server load balancing, so user connect to least loaded instance.

But after i checked 'gcs/ges wait' related to cache fusion, that is very large, i activate only one node, and use another node as failover node.
What i expected here was, i want to reduce intercluster operations for sql/dml.

The problem i still got was, when one table was actively update by many users and i did full table scan on it, it's quite slow. I have compared it with non-RAC database, it's about 2-3 times slower. I have activated sql trace, and found many2 of 'global cr request' wait on that full table scan.

So i feel a little confuse now. I guess when providing consistent view of updated blocks, the active node still check for existency of those blocks in another instance (that should be failed because the node is pasive), and then read from undo segments. That is probably why non-RAC database got faster.

The question is: How could i reduce intercluster operation in full table scan. I have read about gc_files_to_locks parameter, but i'm afraid of inflexibility caused by it (that i need to bounce server to change it).
Is there any best practice to use gc_files_to_locks? I'm really curious on this parameter and wondering if it's worthed to considered..

Best regards,
tomi



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Oct 20 2004 - 22:16:21 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US