From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org  Thu Oct 28 08:47:20 2004
Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org>
Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost)
 by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9SDlKR13805
 for <oracle-l@orafaq.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:47:20 -0500
X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180
Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180])
 by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9SDlJI13798
 for <oracle-l@orafaq.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:47:19 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
 id 1D9C672E14E; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:53:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
 id 14093-75; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:53:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
 id 7FE2872E11C; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:53:30 -0500 (EST)
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Interpreting global cache waits
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:51:48 -0400
Message-ID: <68A6331009FE4D428649E96192C1DAA306EBFF@corpwinexcl1.lifelinesys.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Interpreting global cache waits
Thread-Index: AcS89UVE5fJiSHStToWodCLyhHcDaw==
From: "Finkelstein, Alec" <AFinkelstein@lifelinesys.com>
To: <oracle-l@freelists.org>
X-archive-position: 11633
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
X-original-sender: AFinkelstein@lifelinesys.com
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: AFinkelstein@lifelinesys.com
X-list: oracle-l
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org

Hello,

We have 2-node OPS cluster (8.1.7.4), mostly OLTP. The system is
(predictably) susceptible to high CPU saturations. From the 10046
traces I see PCM lock contention for indexes of hot (high
updates/inserts tables):

global cache lock null to x
buffer busy due to global cache
global cache lock open x

I'm planning to tackle this by doing hash partitioning and splitting
the sequence ranges on the nodes. But my question is as follows: how
do I prove that the "problem" is the system being starved of CPU / DLM
resources (ie not storage)? That is to say, are the waits indication
of storage waits, slow cluster interconnect, or saturated CPUs? E.g.
when DLM is waiting to convert consistent read PCM lock to exclusive
("global cache lock null to x"), presumably it's waiting for the other
instance to release the block. But what is taking the time - high CPU=20
queues or the fact that the other instance is waiting on something else?

Thanks!

Alec.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

