Re: Help with statspack report comparison

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:43:09 +0100
Message-ID: <woOdnfHlBp0POGvbnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com>

"Jerome Vitalis" <vitalismanN05P4M_at_gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message news:46f69ef1$0$23098$79c14f64_at_nan-newsreader-05.noos.net...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:16:14 +0200, Martin T. wrote:
>
>
>> *** AT10 ***
>> Buffer Cache: 48M Std Block Size: 8K
>>
>> *** DE30 ***
>> Buffer Cache: 24M Std Block Size: 8K
>
>
> In addition to Jonathan and Charles's analysis that will surely help find
> the major culprit, there might be a buffer cache size issue as well. Is
> there an actual reason why on the bad box the cache is twice as small as
> on the good one?

Hmm,

It's always a good idea to check the simplest things first I was actually on a site a few weeks ago that had 128GB of dedicated RAM, and a 1GB SGA.

The file I/O was really quick, because it was all coming from a rather large filesystem cache. Used an extreme amount of CPU though.

-- 
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com

Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html

Received on Sun Sep 23 2007 - 12:43:09 CDT