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: Imported DB runs SLOWER on faster machine

Re: Imported DB runs SLOWER on faster machine

From: Telemachus <telemachus_at_ulysseswillreturn.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:21:39 +0100
Message-ID: <8we%8.4325$zX3.3495@news.indigo.ie>


It depends on what gear your small car is in.

Additionally your tractor can pull a hell of a lot more - including pulling you out of the mud.
"Svend Jensen" <svend.jensen_at_it.dk> wrote in message news:3D3D6773.4000206_at_it.dk...
> Rick Denoire wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > I just exported some schemas from an Oracle DB (8.1.7, Solaris) and
> > imported them into a Test DB (Windows NT). Die PC is somewhat faster
> > than the Sun Enterprise 3500 (although it has 4 CPUs , UltraSparc II,
> > and a Raid), as I could confirm doing some tests without the DB.
> >
> > But some long running applications seem to never end on this PC. A job
> > running about 4 min on the Sun system seems to run for DAYS not! I was
> > able to determine that it definitely has something to do with I/O.
> > Well, this PC has a cheap Promise controller and a Raid 0 system with
> > 4 EIDE disks. As I said, using other applications and benchmarks
> > proved that the system is really fast (Athon 2000+ MHz, 1.5 GB RAM,
> >
> >>50 MB/sec sustained transfer rate from the harddisks.
> >>
> >
> > Two possibilities:
> > 1 - the data chunks read by Oracle mismatch the overall stripe size of
> > the Raid 0 disks. Oracle always reads at least db_blocksize x
> > db_file_multiblock_read_count. I could not find out the stripe
> > parameters, because there was no chance to reboot the PC.
> >
> > 2 - Datafiles on the NT system are too large (>20GB). I just forgot
> > that it is not Unix :-) Could anyone comment on maximum Oracle
> > datafile size under Windows NT SP 6? But hey, the DB works somehow.
> >
> > Anyway, when the application runs, there is ALWAYS contention of type
> > db_sequential_read, and as one updates the number of logical read
> > blocks, it is possible to see how slow this operation works. The CPU
> > is almost idle, contrary to the Raid.
> >
> > But I still know nothing about the real CAUSE of the problem. Could
> > any one out there give me some hints about how to identify it?
> >
> > Thanks a lot
> >
> > Rick Denoire
> >
> >
>
> I can hardly believe you think a PC with 2000Mhz cpu is faster than a 4
> cpu UltraSparc II with raid !
> I have a tractor with ~170 HP engine, and it can not outrun my small car
> with a 90 HP engine.
> It takes more than clockcycles to perform and you have a long way to go.
> Wasted clock cycles are gone forever, among others....
>
> /Svend Jensen
>
Received on Tue Jul 23 2002 - 10:21:39 CDT

Original text of this message

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