Re: Scalability fo Batch Operations in RAC

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your insight. Presently we are not using partioning as an option but I will thinkover your suggestion and discuss with the Development team to see if this approach can be followed,

Thanks again for the insight

Best Regards

Sriram Kumar

On 12/26/05, Mark W. Farnham wrote:
>
>
> Your traces should tell you a lot. Of course the RA in RAC stands for Real
> Applications with at least a marketing meaning that you don't have to
> re-write your applications to run on multiple nodes.
>
> However, if you take a batch application that is threading through blocks
> in search of rows to work on that are intertwined with likely identical
> plans, those 4 ms block shuttles, even though pretty doggone fast,
> are likely the extra overhead. You might also have "consistent write"
> (see Tom Kyte) problems in running the job in parallel that are exacerbated
> by bringing a second node into the equation. Hmm, let's see - twice as much
> horsepower and the job takes 3 halves the previous elapsed time. That is
> pretty bad scaling. If adding 3rd, 4th, ... nth nodes tracks, then you can
> use half-life equations to see how many nodes you have to add to make the
> job asymptotic to forever.
>
> So while you don't have to re-write the application to make it continue to
> function logically correctly in RAC, maybe you can come up with a reasonable
> way to make the 2 (or n) nodes at least start out after
> different blocks to begin with. If there is a natural way to partition or
> cluster for the batch job so that threads on node 1 naturally go after one
> set of blocks and threads on node 2 naturally go after a different set of
> blocks, then you are more likely to reduce the overall elasped time by
> keeping inter node traffic light. Even the overhead of assembling disparate
> lists of blocks to process into intermediate "select against" tables and
> adding the node's block candidate list to the query might work out in your
> favor if partitioning is not a reasonable solution. Do please remember that
> disjoint sets of rows are NOT good enough and that you need disjoint sets of
> blocks to avoid internode dependencies.
>
> Good luck.
>
> mwf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]*On Behalf Of *Sriram Kumar
> *Sent:* Monday, December 26, 2005 10:50 AM
> *To:* ORACLE-L
> *Subject:* Scalability fo Batch Operations in RAC
>
> Hi Gurus,
>
> We are running a heavy batch operation of a banking application on RAC.
> Say the configuration is a 2 node 4 CPU Itanium2 box running 9.2.0.4.
>
> We have batch operation that can be run in parallel. What I am noticing
> is that when I run all the batch operations in node 1, it gets over in 2
> hours . During this time, the other node is not used at all. To optimally
> use the resources , I run the batches across 2 nodes, I see a degradation in
> performance( the elapsed time would be around 3 hours).There are no blocking
> locks and interconnect performance is good( block transfer time is around
> 4ms). I am planning to do a 10046 on both the scenarios and compare the top
> SQL's and waits.
>
> I just wanted to know if any one of you had faced this issue before or is
> this normal?.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Sriram Kumar
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 26 2005 - 19:53:29 CST