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

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:00:36 +1000
Message-ID: <3f6ed6d8$0$10355$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Jan van Mourik wrote:

> "Tanel Poder" <change_to_my_first_name_at_integrid.info> wrote in message
> news:<3f6e1d7f$1_1_at_news.estpak.ee>...

>> Hi!
>>
>> Which version?
>> Are the servers equal?
>> Are the datafile and redolog layouts equal?
>> What are the differences in init.ora parameters?
>> Are the tablespaces and segment free space in both examples managed the
>> same way? (DMT vs LMT, Freelists vs ASSM)?
>> Are the logging attributes the same in both examples?
>> Are execution plans the same?
>> etc..
>> etc..
>>
>> Tanel.

> 
> Tanel, I didn't want to bore you guys with all that info, but
> - Both 9.2.0.1
> - The Xp is on a 1.5ghz pentium 4, the linux box is an Athlon xp1700+.
> - Database layout and init.ora the same
> - tablespaces both Locally Managed AutoAllocate with ASSM and logging
> - db in noarchivelog mode
> - same execution plans, well, it's an select .. from .. insert /*
> append */
> 
> Just wondering if there was a general thing going on with linux that
> would make the insert so slow and cpu intensive compared to XP.
> Especially since the retrieval is so much faster, the script I
> mentioned runs 5~6 times faster on linux...
> 
> Any way to speed up the linux lfs?
> 
> jan

What db_block_size did you use? On out-of-the-box RH8, you *must* use 4K blocks, because that's the file system buffer size. On Windows, which does direct IO, you can pick any block size you like, because there's no file system buffer to worry about.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Sep 22 2003 - 06:00:36 CDT