Re: Extra CPU

No it should just spin the one the procedure is running on. (you can't predict which one)
Jim

"Ilya Kuzkin" <elliew_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9av8be$1h4$1_at_news3.cadvision.com...
> Nope. It's a standard loop construction.
> You can try it yourself:
> begin
> for i in 1..200000 loop
> null;
> end loop;
> end;
>
> Spins the single processor fairly well on any NT platform.
>
> And I really do wonder will it spin all CPUs if we have more than one.
>
> Sincerely, Ilya.
>
> Jim Kennedy <kennedy-family_at_home.com> wrote in message
> news:TFwA6.700568$U46.21940953_at_news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > Find out why it is using so much processor time. Is it all dynamic sql?
> > Jim
> >
> > "Ilya Kuzkin" <elliew_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9ati6g$fai$1_at_news3.cadvision.com...
> > > Hi, All.
> > > Environment:
> > > Oracle 8.0.4 (yes, desupported), Dec Alpha NT 4.0 (of course
 desupported
> > > too) :)
> > > Here's the problem - We've got several concurrent processes and one of
 them
> > > performs heavy PL/SQL code and another executes queries one after
 another
> > > (lets call them Process 1 and Process 2 for the further reference).
> > > Process 1 is basically spinning the server for the 80% of its working
 cycle
> > > with PL/SQL long lasting loop so the performance of Process 2 falls
> > > drastically (4 times) and we really cannot afford this.
> > > So, I wonder... If we add the second processor to this dinosaur. Would
 it
> > > really improve the situation? Wont it happen that that loop will
 occupy
 and
> > > spin both CPUs as it spins the single one?
> > > My concern is - we cannot just take that proc out of the blue, we have
 to
> > > destroy the standby server machine so it may be costly for us... But
 if
 we
> > > will be able to obtain seriuous benefits from this move, please let me
 know.
> > >
> > > Sincerely, Ilya.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 10 2001 - 19:29:34 CDT