Re: RH Linux 8 vs Windows XP -- Question...

unix filesystem is bad suited for database operations

the only good thing is KAIO on raw devices

oracle on windows uses direct io without buffering, but on unix you use filesystem buffering by default

on linux you can use raw devices to advoid buffering, but KAIO is not available

with oracle 10g you can avoid these problems altogether because the software contains now
volume manager software and you avoid the overhead of filesystems without the problems
of raw devices

this high expensive veritas crap with volume manager, filesystem and quick IO is then unnecessary

then oracle on linux should be better than windows

"Jan van Mourik" <jmourik_at_yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ffe966de.0309211236.41025f04_at_posting.google.com...
> Gentlemen...
>
> I'm wondering if anybody has encountered something similar...
> I'm running Tom Kyte's script to create BIG_TABLE on two play
> databases I run, one on RH Linux 8, one on XP. They have been
> configured similarly, init.ora parameters are pretty much the same.
> Yet, look at these tkprof snippets:
>
> XP
> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ into big_table
> select rownum+:b1,
> OWNER, OBJECT_NAME, SUBOBJECT_NAME,
> OBJECT_ID, DATA_OBJECT_ID,
> OBJECT_TYPE, CREATED, LAST_DDL_TIME,
> TIMESTAMP, STATUS, TEMPORARY,
> GENERATED, SECONDARY
> from big_table
> where rownum <= :b2-:b1
>
> call count cpu elapsed disk query current
> rows
> ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
> --------
> Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
> 0
> Execute 6 5.37 10.97 8365 14635 2133
> 970885
> Fetch 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
> 0
> ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
> --------
> total 7 5.37 10.97 8365 14635 2133
> 970885
>
> versus Linux:
>
> call count cpu elapsed disk query current
> rows
> ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
> --------
> Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
> 0
> Execute 6 12.81 33.79 7601 14635 2130
> 970482
> Fetch 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
> 0
> ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
> --------
> total 7 12.82 33.79 7601 14635 2130
> 970482
>
> Roughly the same number of rows, but a big difference in cpu and
> elapsed. XP is much faster!!!
> When I run the workload simulation setup from Kyte's book 'Effective
> Oracle by design' (p. 314) the linux box beats the pants of the XP.
> But loading the table is a lot slower. Makes me wonder if something in
> my Linux setup is bad...
> Any ideas?
>
> jan
Received on Sun Sep 21 2003 - 17:54:38 CDT