Re: Archive Log affects performance?

It is going to depend how the machne is configured. If the redo logs were very small and there were only 2 of them and the drtive where the archive logs are going is slow then yes there would be a problem. What would be the problem? The redo logs would fill up and the archiver would not have had a chance to copy them off befoore they were needed. Like: redo1 is active and 50K in size (a stupidly small size) It fills up in a second or two and you switch to
redo2. The archiver starts to archive redo1 and redo 2 fills up. At this point Oracle cannot switch to redo1 until redo1 is archived.

My guess is that the DBA has taken this condition into account. He has the redo and archive logs so they are not contending for IO and the log switches and archiving process is such that it does not run into this possibility. Given the machines are beefy, I don't think this will be a problem.

How long is it taking with archiving - a multi-million row update shouldn't take that long.
Jim

"Noodles" <noodles_at_aol.com> wrote in message news:20020119073024.13323.00002577_at_mb-cp.aol.com...
> OS: HP Unix 11.0.x - (K and N class)
> ORA: 8.1.7
>
> I'm getting ready to do a multi-million row update on 40+ databases around
the
> world. Before the update, I'll get a cold backup and no users will be
logged
> in during the update.
>
> Do you think I can tweak a little more performance if I place the database
in
> non-archive log mode? I've got lots of disk space and no IO contention.
>
> Some collegeaues think the archiver process puts a minimal system load but
> others disagree. I suppose I could just test it but the senior DBA is the
one
> who thinks the archive process is not a performance factor. ( and I can't
> convince him to test his theory)
>
> Does anybody have any benchmark data/anecdotes to prove one way or the
other ?
>
> TIA,
> Cliff
Received on Sat Jan 19 2002 - 10:46:49 CST