Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: redo log sync time

Re: redo log sync time

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:14:19 -0000
Message-ID: <979319921.27722.0.nnrp-08.9e984b29@news.demon.co.uk>

One point to bear in mind is that the 'redo log synch' time is NOT the redo log write time - it is (usually) the time between a foreground process sending a message to LGWR to do a log sync, and the time that the process can continue, so it includes dead time for process switches and all the other overheads associated with mulit-tasking.

(Steve Adams' book on Internal Waits, etc. is the best source of information for this sort of thing - see his website at www.ixora.com.au)

--
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



Andreas Goldammer wrote in message
<3a5eaec3$0$8788$73bec562_at_personalnews.de.uu.net>...

>
>
>>
>>
>I have tuned I/O and removed the contention on the disk drives and
>I am still wondering why the logsync time is the same as on the
>old box.
>
>My tuning actions:
> - a faster box (about double speed)
> - split the I/O's to the SSA (use two adapters on separate bus)
> - install faster disk drives
> - increase the SSA speed from 20 to 40
> - remove the AIX mirror from the log filesystems (avoid MWC)
> - allocate the logs on separate disks (with no other FS on)
>
>These actions were taken and I can see a performance improvment;
>e.g. The database response times have decreased significant,
> The creation of a 2GB datafile on the old box took 15 min
> whereas the new one finishes in 4 min.
>
>Can anybody tell me about logfile sync and hardware in other OLTP's ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 12 2001 - 11:14:19 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US