| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: 64-Bit Oracle on Windows 2003
I want more users and faster transactions. The system receives web
entries from hospitals and doctors offices reporting instances of
particular reportable diseases. There are probably a 1000 users with
very low reporting. We also receive batch loads of lab reports. This
is increasing as we add more labs to our reporting base. Presently there
are only about 2500 inserts a day. A staff of about 250 public health
workers access these records and create investigations based on disease
reports. In the event of a major outbreak the system will go clunk very
fast.
We are using an older HP SAN running RAID 10. I don't know why Itanium. I think somebody had a magazine article saying Itanium was preferred for database servers.
-----Original Message----- From: akolk_at_oraperf.com [mailto:akolk_at_oraperf.com] On Behalf Of Anjo Kolk Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: dofreeman_at_state.pa.us Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: 64-Bit Oracle on Windows 2003 Don, Define performance in your case:you (larger shared pool, buffer cache, and more process memory to run all the windows threads), if you would use the same CPU 32 -> 64, you would see a drop of around 10 percent in performance (every thing else should stay the same). The way to improve performance is to reduce physical I/O, by increasing the Oracle Buffer Cache (so 6GB buffer caches are the minimum :-))
- Do you want more users?
- Do you want more tx per user?
- Do you want faster tx per user?
Other Questions:
- How many Raid drives?
- Why Itanium? HP has better boxes with AMDs :-)
If you want more users, then going with 64bit will do that for
Any way, answer the quesions and we can give you a better advise,
Anjo.
On 8/16/06, Freeman, Donald <dofreeman_at_state.pa.us> wrote:
Hi, I need some feedback on upgrading to 64-Bit. We are a state public health agency. My project team has proposed that during our regular server replacement cycle that our next purchase to replace our OLTP RAC system should be HP 64-bit servers, each w/ dual 1.6GHz Itanium processors, 16 GB RAM, 146 GB RAID drives, dual power supplies, and Windows Server 2003 64-bit.
We are getting a lot of kickback from our director about performance. All we can do is speculate about how this is going to work in our environment. We have had Oracle in and they told us we'd get up to a five-fold increase in performance in an OLTP system. Right now our 32-bit architecture tops out at about 60 users. We should be able to respond to a public health emergency during which time it should be able to handle a lot more users. We think this would get us there.
Does anybody have any wonder stories about how their life changed after 64 bit? Here is the exact quote I am trying to address:
".... I am concerned that we are going to spend over $100,000 for 64 bit servers without understanding what we will get for this. I understand this should improve performance, but it is not clear that we have a benchmark in place. I am not in favor of buying equipment in hopes that performance will improve anecdotically. I would like to see some hard numbers that will point to whether or not this investment delivers what is promised?"
Don Freeman Database Administrator 1 Bureau of Information Technology Pennsylvania Department of Health (717) 703-5782 -- Anjo Kolk Owner and Founder OraPerf Projects tel: +31-577-712000 mob: +31-6-55340888
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 12:20:06 CDT
 |
 |