Re: [Q] tuning with memory?

From: Bob Fazio <bob_fazio_at_hotmail.com.no.spam>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 05:25:47 GMT
Message-ID: <vN2z3.2469$E46.3035@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>

If you are truely I/O bound, which it sounds as though you are, I would consider adding more controllers and disks. Then stripe and mirror (make sure you use multiple controllers) on the tablespaces that get the majority of the updates. Raid 5 can be a real pain if the tables get large, due to the indexes that need to be updated along with the data. You might also look into partitioning as an option, it can cut down on the depth of you indexes dramatically.

--
Bob Fazio
Remove no.spam from my email to reply

Paul G Young <pgy_at_magma.ca> wrote in message news:01bef400$0ef57fe0$c23fbfce_at_default...
> I have a mid-sized database (20Gb). I know the applications and user
> access
> patterns. Within that 20Gb, about 1Gb gets hit hard. It is predominately
> reporting (Data Warehouse) with a constant level of updates. It uses
> indexes when it should and full-tables scans appropriately. I've spent
> months tuning the applications. Oracle is running pretty well.
>
> This database runs on a HP Unix box with 768Mb or memory. It wails on the
> disks until response times really suffer. I was thinking of increasing
the
> main memory to 4Gb and allocating massive buffers to Oracle. Do you think
> this will help? Will it be a dramatic improvement? Do you have any
> experience with this?
>
> Your advice in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Paul G Young
> pgy_at_magma.ca
Received on Wed Sep 01 1999 - 00:25:47 CDT