Re: Cost-Based Optimizer and AIX Virtual Processors
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:33:46 -0400
Don't have a sample yet. This incident (which actually may be incidents) occurred on new hardware where we've installed a sandbox as part of a looming SAP upgrade. I'm taking snapshots and doing some other monitoring now. When our development team takes a breath, I'm going to ask them to run the job when the box is ramped up and when it's relatively quiet.
Rich's recollection sort of matches my gut feeling (we had TONS of issues in Production with application servers and load balancing until we stopped the virtual CPU/Memory) but until I can collect some empirical evidence or someone can point me to a discussion or article on the subject, I really don't have much to go on.
Keep you informed.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Rich Jesse < rjoralist_at_society.servebeer.com> wrote:
> Hey David,
> > Has anyone seen execution plans change using virtual processors on AIX?
> How about VM/Linux or VM/Windows? For the purposes of the optimizer, I'd
> think they'd all react in a similar manner.
> > We've got several partitions on an AIX system. If a specific instance
> a certain allotment of processors (generally >=2) when a query kicks off,
> it runs differently than when the instance is basically idle (<= 1
> processor allocated) and the query starts.
> 2-3 years ago, I briefly tested micro-partioning using 10.2 on a 4-core
> blade with 3 LPARs. Each LPAR had .1 CPUs with a maximum of 2. IIRC, it
> was the CPU_COUNT parameter on DB *startup* as well as the gathered system
> statistics that had the most impact on execution plan (at least as far as
> micro-partitioning was concerned).
> I have some dim memory that system statistics widely varied, which made it
> difficult to collect, since other LPARs could easily grab more CPU away
> the one that was collecting stats.
> All said, I didn't care for it. Made planning very difficult, if not