From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Fri Oct 22 05:01:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9MA1LC13676 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:01:21 -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 i9MA1KI13671 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:01:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id C49B772C3C2; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:07:27 -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 20315-69; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 1A75172C355; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:07:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20041022100549.16569.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:05:49 -0700 (PDT) From: tomi wijanto Subject: Re: RAC problem, is gc_files_to_locks is needed? To: oracle-l@freelists.org In-Reply-To: <20041021051840.4BC8072C6BD@turing.freelists.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 11413 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: restomi_w@yahoo.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: restomi_w@yahoo.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org Hi, thanks for your reply.. I tried to get information about resource master in RAC, but i stuck by the column name on view GV$GCSHVMASTER_INFO. What are the meaning of hv_id? can i map to some object? Also the value of current_master and previous_master are strange, what is 0 or 32767 means? btw, someone ever use parameter gc_files_to_locks? What is the proper value of number of lock for each datafile? regards, tomi --- biti_rainy wrote: > hi,tomi wijanto > > from oracle document > > Setting this parameter to any value other than the > default will disable Cache Fusion processing in > Oracle9i Real Application Clusters. > > > from > Oracle Real Application Clusters > by Murali Vallath > > > Local > When the block is read for the first time into an > and there are no other instances in the cluster that > have read the same block or are holding the block, > then the block is locally managed > > Global > If the block that was originally acquired has been > modified by the holding instance and, based on a > request from another instance, has transmitted the > block over. The block that was originally on one > node is now present in multiple nodes and therefore > is considered globally managed > > When an instance reads data blocks for the very > first time, its existence is local, that is, no > other instance in the cluster has a copy of the same > block. The block in this state is called a current > state block (XI). Therefore, the behavior of this > block in memory is similar to any single instance > configuration, with the exception that GCS keeps > track of the block even in a local mode. Multiple > transactions within the instance have access to > these data blocks. Once another instance has > requested for the same block, then the GCS process > will update the GRD, taking the state of the data > block from a local role to a global role. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > msn: biti_rainy@hotmail.com > a dba from alibaba(china) > > ---- from the mail----- > >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!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l