Re: Redo latch tuning question

> I'll bet the absolute number of gets/misses is tiny
> compared to the immediate gets/misses.

Yes it is, thank you.

> On the redo copy latch the 'willing to wait' gets/misses
> can be ignored.
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Lewis
> Yet another Oracle-related web site: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
>
> Anne Hanson wrote in message <37F4C91B.E1FEC77A_at_fas.harvard.edu>...
> >On one of my servers, I have heavy contention for redo copy latches. The
> >gets/misses ratio is extremely poor. The immediate gets/misses ratio is
> >fine. The redo allocation latch is not experiencing any contention. I'm
> >running 8.0.5 on NT 4.0. I've been reading up on latches, and the two
> >solutions I've seen suggested are:
> >
> >1) Increase the LOG_SIMULTANEOUS_COPIES initialization parameter to 2 *
> >number of CPUs. Right now it is 2, as the server has 2 CPUs.
> >
> >2) If the above doesn't help, increase the LOG_SMALL_ENTRY_MAX_SIZE so
> >more redo entries will be handled by the redo allocation latch.
> >
> >Does anyone know of any down side to either of these solutions, or
> >anything else I should be thinking of? Thanks in advance for any tips,
> >
> >Anne
> >
> >
Received on Fri Oct 01 1999 - 14:32:54 CDT