Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:16:16 +0000, Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
>
>>"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2003.03.05.11.23.36.418727_at_yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>>>Since then we are facing heavy performance losses. For example : a
>>>
>>weekly
>>
>>>>performed import needed
>>>>approx. 2h runtime. Now, after the redolog modification this job needs
>>>
>>more
>>
>>>>than 24 hours to complete.
>>>>
>>>>How can this be ?
>>>
>>>It can't be. Adding redo log groups will have absolute zero performance
>>>impact, and something else is amiss.
>>
>>Could it be that ARCH is now failing to keep up? This should show up in the
>>alert log.
>
>
> If his logs had increased to 100GB, I'd buy this! But if ARCH can't cope
> with a 10MB log, something is seriously amiss...
>
> Cheers,
> HJR
Except that the original poster said in another branch of this thread
that he had not been archiving redo logs until he resized them to 10MB.
The app could hve been generating lots of redo before -- IIRC that is
why he resized the redo. If he is generating lots of redo and is just
now starting to archive it he could well be causing the database to
pause while it archives the redo. He needs to check to see that this is
not happening.
--
AjA
Received on Wed Mar 05 2003 - 14:44:44 CST
