In all honesty .... my 650mhz W2K PIII Laptop often outperforms most E10Ks
data volumes are (sometimes much) smaller yes but it points at the
expectations people have.
"Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3D3DB4A6.D11C47BC_at_exesolutions.com...
> Telemachus wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
>
> Either way ... it would take one heck of a horribly configured and tuned
4CPU
> Ultrasparc to be slower than a single CPU PC.
>
> Daniel Morgan
>
Received on Wed Jul 24 2002 - 04:38:28 CDT
