- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Performance question
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-22-2001 08:15 AM
тАО05-22-2001 08:15 AM
Performance question
1. Report generation speed greatly improved.
2. Data loading speed greatly decreased.
The latter is causing grave concern since it currently takes us more than 1 h to load 1 h worth of real-time data (previously ~20min). We are only able to catch up during the night, when fewer records are created.
Since Oracle config otherwise didn't change at all, I am assuming that this is an appropriate forum for this problem.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
-- Stanislav
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-23-2001 02:35 AM
тАО05-23-2001 02:35 AM
Re: Performance question
The solutions we used were:
- use maximum cache memory in the disk box,
- use raid 1 most of the time,
- use 8 LDEV instead of just 3.
This greatly improve perf in both areas, reading and writing.
Hope this will help.
Good luck!!!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-23-2001 03:33 AM
тАО05-23-2001 03:33 AM
Re: Performance question
- What do you mean by "using maximum cache"? Our XP has the maximum ammount installed (32GB). Although theoretically we could move the internalborder to allow more room for write than for read cache, we were told by HP, essentially, "don't try this at home".
- Unfortunately size of DB prevents us to use RAID 1. It was a business decision.
- I don't see how you got the impression that we use 3 LDEVs. The DB size is, as I said, ~1TB, and we are in fact using 7*31 = 217 LDEVs.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-23-2001 04:06 AM
тАО05-23-2001 04:06 AM
Re: Performance question
Did you create the LUSES in dispersed mode (or were the arraygroups formatted in dispersed mode)?
hope this helps,
Mark
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-23-2001 05:09 AM
тАО05-23-2001 05:09 AM
Re: Performance question
Performance assessment is part of the regular process in our company. I am therefore posting the question on this forum as a complement to that.
Oh, and we don't use LUSEs at all, and I don't know how the array groups were formatted when the LDEVs were created. That process is outsourced to HP completely.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-24-2001 11:06 AM
тАО05-24-2001 11:06 AM
Re: Performance question
My 2 cents :-
1) Make sure that you have not created a logical volume , which is stripped accross LUNs in the same RAID group.I use the -i and -I options, with lvcreate, which gives better control on the stripe size.( man lvcreate).
2) Are you using raw logical volumes or filesystems for the database ? If you are are using VXFS fileystem , try mounting the filesystems ( only the database filesystems ) with "mincache=direct" and "convosync=direct" option. These options help bypassing the filesystem buffer cache and the IO's are done directly using Oracle's buffer cache.
3) If you use Glance/Perfview or sar , during data load do you see any resource bottleneck?
Low memory , high priority queue on processor or disk subsystem queue can slow down the server.
Hope this helps!
Praveen
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-08-2001 01:15 AM
тАО06-08-2001 01:15 AM
Re: Performance question
As I prepared to implement your recommendations, DBAs discovered that the loss of performance was actually due to DB corruption, and the implementation was cancelled (this is a production system). As soon as it was corrected, we got excellent performance.
I did, however, implement them on one of our test systems and will monitor the performance very closely. In any case, thanks a lot!