Re: performance problems after increasing redolog size

Hi,

It could be done. If you have specified for expample 8 mandatory archive log destinations to the same disk where your redologs lie. But you might need to upgrade to 9i for that, because in 8i the limit is 5 or smth destinations ;)

Tanel.

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:pan.2003.03.06.19.17.08.755996_at_yahoo.com.au...
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:09:44 +0000, Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.03.05.19.36.59.512043_at_yahoo.com.au...
> >> >> 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...
> >
> > As indeed, now the information has trickled out it is.
> >
> > 1cpu machine, 1gb ram, 4 databases, all oracle software and databases on
a
> > single raid5 set. System is generating significant redo (at least
> > 30mb/minute at peak times if I read the alert.log correctly). At which
point
> > archiving is switched on. You could probably design a worse performing
> > system, bjut ikt would be fairly difficult to do.
> >
>
> ;-)
>
> Agree completely!
>
> Still, it's impressive. I can't recall ever being able to demonstrate so
> effectively that turning on archiveing can cause performance problems. 2
> hours down to 24... that's quite some change!!
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Niall Litchfield
> > Oracle DBA
> > Audit Commission UK
>
Received on Thu Mar 06 2003 - 13:32:16 CST