Re: Hardware, Cores, Licenses

From: Alex Busam <>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:06:29 +0200
Message-ID: <502e5df3$0$6562$>

Thank you very much for your answer!
It's a normal windows 2003 Server, not enterprise. Interesting. Don't know this difference.

I think the mean problem is, that the config of oracle is for a big group of ERPs for concerns from small to big. My knowlegde about oracle is not much big and we have definitivly a service agreement with the group and can not do what we want. The ERP is continuitly developt and there is no alternative.
The parameters are for middle mass of ERP, but we have 4 branches and much more articles than the rest.

Now I will move the system to the new server and found some improvements (a clone is running on our esxi to "play" for) and discuss with our service provider for the ERP.

I have an old version of toad to test and try to optimize the parameters. The new system with i/o about SAS, 15K, 2 LDs with RAID1, maybe a RAID10 of 4 drives will be 2 or 3 times faster then the U320 with 2 x RAID1. So this and opimized parameters will bring much more performance, double would be ok for us.

Am 16.08.2012 09:18, schrieb Noons:
> On Aug 15, 5:47 am, Alex Busam <> wrote:
>> I make a backup image of the hole windows 2003 Server including oracle
>> and the database and I like to transfer it on a new hardware. I will
>> move the server on a new hardware.
> and will it stay a W2003 server?
> Is this Windows Enterprise Server or simply Windows Server?
> There is a fundamental difference between the two. Read on.
>> the old server is a 2 cpu single core 3,6 GHz Xeon. But I think the
>> bottleneck is the i/o.
> It'll be the I/O unless you are running Enterprise Server. No matter
> what.
>> And the i/o-device? How much faster will my config be confirmed with the
>> old U320? I know that there are a lot of factors you (and I) don't know...
> Windows server has one I/O queue for each drive letter. Each queue
> has a depth limit of about 5 before it starts hitting throttle race
> conditions and bottlenecks. So if you have more than 5 database files
> on concurrent access per drive letter, you got a virtually guaranteed
> I/O bottleneck regardless of the hw used.
> The alternative is to use Windows Enterprise Server - which has a
> completely different I/O queueing mechanism and strategy- or spread
> the I/O across a LOT of drive letters, or use a SAN with variable
> queue lengths for each connection, or a combination of the last two.
Received on Fri Aug 17 2012 - 10:06:29 CDT

Original text of this message