Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 32054 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2007 08:11:23 -0500 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2007 08:11:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 54BA27245E2; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22282-01-2; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 6F8517241CB; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id B700D721079 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11819-08 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email10.mywebmailserver.com (email10.mywebmailserver.com [199.231.136.140]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id A5C047232EC for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 600d620tcoyle ([72.165.244.50]) by email10.mywebmailserver.com (IntelliMail) with ASMTP id CRY74585; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:28:33 -0400 From: "Ted Coyle" To: , "'Rajeev Prabhakar'" Cc: "'oracle-l'" Subject: RE: sort latch usage in MTS mode Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:28:28 -0400 Message-ID: <003001c7d9b7$a0221820$e958a8c0@medecision.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C7D996.19107820" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: <962cf44b0708080149o1d05e033i7cc253e8f308ec15@mail.gmail.com> X-archive-position: 410 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: oracle-l@webthere.com Precedence: normal Reply-to: oracle-l@webthere.com List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C7D996.19107820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Looks like not much people have the experience with 10g MTS yet." Yet? I hope never.. MTS is bad, plain and simple. This falls into my "Don't by a problem" category. Since leaving 8i behind, I've seen MTS as something that should be used as a short term work-around. I've found hardware load balancing and application pooling to be far more effective without incurring queuing inherent with MTS. Ted _____ From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Zhu,Chao Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:50 AM To: Rajeev Prabhakar Cc: oracle-l Subject: Re: sort latch usage in MTS mode Looks like not much people have the experience with 10g MTS yet. To Kevin: SQL> select * from v$License; SESSIONS_MAX SESSIONS_WARNING SESSIONS_CURRENT SESSIONS_HIGHWATER USERS_MAX ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------- 0 0 11474 13293 0 For sure we use middleware to do connection pooling. We still can't make the connection below 8-10k for some databases; To Alex: sort will use large pool in MTS mode. Please check out metalink note 223153.1. It is very easy to reproduce/prove. Is there any guys from Amazon type company here in the list? A script enabled browser is required for this page to function properly. A script enabled browser is required for this page to function properly. On 8/7/07, Rajeev Prabhakar < rprabha01@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Zhu Chao Could you please run the following query and post the results : select * from v$sgastat order by 3 ; -Rajeev On 8/6/07, Nigel Thomas wrote: Zu Chao wrote: maybe not many people use MTS recently due to nearly-free RAM. But when connection# goes real high, you still have to, and we are such a user. Kevin Closson replied: just out of curiosity, what is "real high" in terms of connect count? And another (maybe irrelevant) point: when there is a mid-tier shared connection pool, that can also act as a concentrator/multiplexer (eg I have LoadRunner tested 2000 "users" executing a realistic high volume workload with (iirc) only 100-200 real Oracle connections). Yes, I know 2000 is not "real high" :) but you can scale out this approach. MTS and app server shared pool have different strengths and weaknesses (for the benefit of the BAAG party - or just to stimulate more informed replies - I'll refrain from proving my ignorance by guessing what they are :-). Regards Nigel -- Regards Zhu Chao www.cnoug.org ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C7D996.19107820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

“Looks like not much people have the experience with 10g = MTS yet.”

Yet?  I hope = never….

 

MTS is bad, plain and simple.  = This falls into my “Don’t by a problem” category.  =

 

Since leaving 8i behind, I’ve = seen MTS as something that should be used as a short term = work-around.

I’ve found hardware load = balancing and application pooling to be far more effective without incurring queuing = inherent with MTS.

 

Ted

 

 

 

From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org] = On Behalf Of Zhu,Chao
Sent: Wednesday, August = 08, 2007 4:50 AM
To: Rajeev Prabhakar
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: Re: sort latch = usage in MTS mode

 

Looks like not much people have the experience with 10g MTS = yet.
To Kevin:

SQL> select * from v$License;

SESSIONS_MAX SESSIONS_WARNING SESSIONS_CURRENT SESSIONS_HIGHWATER  USERS_MAX
------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ = ----------
           0            =     0            11474           &n= bsp;  13293          0

 For sure we use middleware to do connection pooling. We still = can't make the connection below 8-10k for some databases;

To Alex:
sort will use large pool in MTS mode. Please check out metalink note = 223153.1. It is very easy to reproduce/prove.

Is there any guys from Amazon type company here in the list?

 

 

On 8/7/07, Rajeev Prabhakar < rprabha01@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Zhu Chao

 

Could you please run the following

query and post the results :

 

select * from v$sgastat order by 3 = ;

 

-Rajeev



 

On 8/6/07, Nigel Thomas <nigel_cl_thomas@yahoo.com > wrote:

 

Zu Chao wrote: maybe not many people use MTS recently due to nearly-free RAM. But when connection# goes real high, you still have to, = and we are such a user. 

 

Kevin Closson replied: just = out of curiosity, what is "real high" in terms of connect = count?

 

 And another (maybe irrelevant) point: when there is a = mid-tier shared connection pool, that can also act as a concentrator/multiplexer = (eg I have LoadRunner tested 2000 "users" executing a realistic high = volume workload with (iirc) only 100-200 real Oracle connections). Yes, I know = 2000 is not "real high" :) but you can scale out this = approach.

 

MTS and app server shared pool have different strengths and = weaknesses (for the benefit of the BAAG party - or just to stimulate more = informed replies - I'll refrain from proving my ignorance by guessing what they = are :-).

 

Regards Nigel






--
Regards
Zhu Chao
www.cnoug.org<= /p>

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C7D996.19107820-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l