Re: Competition for OraPerf

"Mladen Gogala" <mgogala.spam-me-not_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:pan.2006.11.05.20.29.26.641807_at_verizon.net...
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:04:12 +0000, Richard Foote wrote:
>
>> With CPU contributing just 21% of time, one of the key recommendations is
>> to
>> increase the speed or number of CPUs !!
>
> Actually, I strongly disagree with this recommendation. If your machine
> spends most of the time waiting for the IO, new CPU board(s) will not do
> much for the performance. In that case Don Burleson's recommendation to
> move things to SSD would actually make sense.
> I would say that with the complexities of modern Oracle databases and the
> cost of people who know how to tune them, SSD devices for redo logs are
> starting to make much more sense. A consultant like me would cost you
> $/hour and I am on the lower end. Mind you, I'm not Anjo Kolk, Cary
> Millsap, Jonathan Lewis, Steve Adams or Howard Rogers, they're much more
> expensive. An 8GB flash disk like Ritek CFR8G-80X-G costs $150 and will
> probably do a lot for your transaction rate, if you put redo logs there.
> It's all cost-benefit. With the complexities of present days Oracle
> databases, spending some money to speed up your I/O is always a good
> decision.
> Personally, I've never seen a database server with CPU set more then 40%
> on average. Databases are almost always stuck on I/O. While it is
> important to write SQL properly, it is getting harder and harder to do.
> Oracle optimizer is increasingly complex and hard to use. Analyzing 10053
> trace and 10046 traces is really a hard thing to do and, also a very
> expensive one. Buying few SSD devices for a few grands will probably do
> you more good then having Tom Kyte on site for a day, and for the same
> price. SSD devices are affordable, a cigarette lighter-sized USB memory
> stick with 1GB ram costs $30 at Staples. It's a perfect thing for
> industrial espionage, a gadget coming directly from 007 movies. Why not
> take advantage of it?
>

Hi Mladen,

Because it's one thing to ensure you have sufficient hardware for your requirements, whatever the requirements and hardware might be.

But it's quite another thing to simply throw hardware at a problem, it invariable doesn't work unless the root issue is addressed.

However it's much much much worse and quite another thing again to throw hardware at a problem that doesn't actually exist.!!

Give me Tom Kyte any day ...

Cheers

Richard Received on Mon Nov 06 2006 - 01:25:17 CST