Re: Competition for OraPerf

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?

-- 
http://www.mladen-gogala.com