RE: Negative ramifications of setting CPU_COUNT lower?

From: Allen, Brandon <>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:06:04 -0700
Message-ID: <64BAF54438380142A0BF94A23224A31E112E73A3D9_at_ONEWS06.oneneck.corp>

I understand the trade-offs, and I am not willing to make them for any of my systems - even those short transactions will be slower on a T-series than they would be on a 5yr old x86 processor. Sure, they may be acceptable, and maybe that's considered to be successful in some situations, but I'd say it's at best sub-optimal, and at worst completely intolerable and a misuse of funds. And, even if your typical DB load is composed of very small transactions, you're still going to suffer big time when it comes time to do installations, upgrades, exp/imp, datapump, backups/restores, etc. I stand by my suggestion - run away! (but I certainly agree it's good to understand _why_ you're running away rather than doing it blindly).


-----Original Message-----

From: Greg Rahn [] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Allen, Brandon
Subject: Re: Negative ramifications of setting CPU_COUNT lower?

implemented the CMT stuff

Part of the problem as I see it is that many people don't seem to understand the trade offs

So instead of being scared of something, I think its much better to explain and understand the trade offs and why it is so.

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
-- Received on Fri Nov 06 2009 - 11:06:04 CST

Original text of this message