Re: Scalable Performace - Inserts/Updates

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:24:35 -0000
Message-ID: <977412094.19946.0.nnrp-02.9e984b29@news.demon.co.uk>

The basis of your discussion is no doubt why Oracle has played around with parameters like:

lgwr_io_slaves
lgwr_async_io

over the last few years. (Both are hidden in 8.1.7) In theory they allow for Oracle doing the multiplexing without the loss of time due to the need to serialise copies of each write.

--
Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site:  http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Practical Oracle 8i:  Building Efficient Databases

Publishers:  Addison-Wesley
See a first review at:
http://www.ixora.com.au/resources/index.htm#practical_8i
More reviews at: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/book_rev.html



Brian Peasland wrote in message <3A421198.6975D1D7_at_edcmail.cr.usgs.gov>...



>I'm still not convinced that going with one member for each group is the

>way to go. Personally, I like redundancy and would even go so far as to

>let Oracle multiplex the groups with multiple members at the same time

>letting hardware mirror the disk files. But then I'm not looking for

>1000 commits/second. And I know that this has been an often debated

>topic in the DBA community.

Received on Thu Dec 21 2000 - 09:24:35 CST