RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

From: Mohan, Ross <MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.002AC8B5.20010206121545@fatcity.com>

Safire
is another defecatory device.

My own
personal reference for correctness is Edwin Newman. (He is dead
now, and so provides little in the way of argument any more.)

-----Original Message-----From: Yosi_at_comhill.com [mailto:Yosi_at_comhill.com]Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:16 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
"broken toilet of a man?"

That's certainly an interesting phrase. We should call William Safire...


<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr

 style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> -----Original Message-----From: Mohan, Ross [mailto:MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com]Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:00 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
 Another way of looking at it:
 So lets say the 12 computer configuration were to have a failure in some *single* wintel box every 7 days .. who cares!! The shared nothing architecture underlying the system load BALANCES users to machines which are up .. no user would even notice ... This is how you hit "Five Nines" at superlow cost points.

This is particularly useful for rolling new machines into and out of the server set to SCALE AS NEEDED...instead of buying "BIG IRON" that sits and waits for the once a year spike in usage. (But you get to pay for it every day!) Just as sites like DELL who will trippple their site size for xmas than return to fewer machines afterwards.
 BUCKETS OF Money saved on operational costs ( server contracts, electricity etc ... ) and all users served all the time. Let's not even TALK about the savings on "POWER UNITS" :) (Larry, you broken toilet of a man!)
 Low concurrency numbers are historically due too poor configuration (the problem is in the application 80% of the time)...just 'cus someone doesn't know how to write an app doesn't mean it can't be done. Oh, and this just in, News Fans:
 The idea that it requires a highly skilled, highly trained, expensive DBA to go create a table is stupid ... I'll get a 7 year old to do it in a few clicks when he gets home from school .... while the database is tuning itself, and I am out studying for me new technical skills...Yay!
 -----Original Message----- From:
 Jesse, Rich [<A
 href="mailto:Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com">mailto:Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:42 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows Actually, not that it matters from what I can tell, but Oracle is tops if you consider clustered vs. non-clustered. It seems that Oracle doesn't even have tests for clustered systems. I wonder what happened to the VLDB tests in the huge DEC/Compaq Alpha cluster? As far as
 SQL (pronounced: "SQueaL") Server "blown the doors off", there are factors that TPC does not consider. First, is reliability. According to Oracle Magazine, Jan/Feb 2001, p38, "...a 12-computer configuration from Microsoft, such as that used in recent TPC-C benchmarks, is estimated to experience a catastophic failure once every 7.5 days, according to Microsoft's own estimates." Granted, the quote is from Oramag, but I've heard the same from other "Industry Sources". I know of a specific implementation where the NT database servers would dog and/or crash when approximately 500 concurrent users were attached (note: "attached" <> "active") to the database. The decision was made to dump NT for DB serving and go with a major (HP or Sun or IBM) flavor of Unix for it's scalability and reliability. Second, when was the last time you needed a 500K TPC-C from only 48 clients? From a couple thousand, yes, but only 48? And who's gonna buy everyone in their company a $7500 desktop PC with twin PIII-800s in them for clients? While those numbers are specific to the top TPC-C Compaq/MS result, that's how all these companies get their numbers. I'm not betting my job on TPC-C numbers. The numbers just don't reflect real-life situations. And I didn't even touch upon the potential locking problems on SQL Server, or how it can do dirty reads... :) Just my
 $.02. I need to go create some Oracle databases on HP/UX now. ;) Rich

    Jesse

System/Database Administrator Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA -----Original Message----- Sent:
 Monday, February 05, 2001 09:56 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
 "NT still pants"...LOL!!! It must be panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in running SQLServer on NT, as has DB2. The general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up and smell the coffee at www.tpc.org <http://www.tpc.org>
 . Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure performance. Not
 interested in pure peformance? Check out the Price/Performance leaders. Oracle doesn't even
 SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our illusions....
 Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch? Fine, check out ANY of the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't even show up.
 I mean, I like
 Oracle, too, but....by the time you turn on the multimode airconditioner, use the 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented OnStar Satellite navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the other tools, trinkets, and toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance that the twenty year old genius mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at the light is going to kick your ass when the light turns green. But really, I
 still love Oracle. Warts and all. Wanna drag? <FONT

    size=2>(heh heh heh)   <FONT 
    size=2>    <FONT 
    size=2>

-----Original Message----- Sent:
 Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:45 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
 I have actually been doing a fair it of reading on this since the topic was brought up, and stand corrected, as earlier mentioned. But I have to say guys that NT is still fairly "pants" when it comes to handling multi threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement but M$ still has a lot of work to do on in my view. (only when you compare this against UNIX) Now don't get me wrong, there is enough traffic on this list about this at the moment, so I dont want more bandwith added with this thread if at all possible :) Thanks for the reply anyway
 Yong, I think I will wait for a "good" book on Win2k to come out (unless you know one?) before I go out and buy one (books come out of my pocket as I am a sales person mostly).. NT as far as I am concerned is now in Win2K's shadow, and I think that is the way of the future for Windowze bound people. For all out there that have used NT and not Win2K - TRY IT.. Services are handled a LOT better, file management and sharing.. All sorts of new fun stuff to sink your teeth in to.. As a
 side note, for the last line of my first paragraph - I also feel that UNIX cannot be compared in anyway to Windows at this time. Windowze O/S's are designed for pointy clicky people that prefer to look at a nice GUI interface, and generally don't have the indepth technical knowledge that a good UNIX sys admin does.. (If there any NT admins out there don't flame me, I have to deal with it every day of my life...) Regards Mark The views expressed here are soley those coming out of my coffee deprived hungover mind.. They do not express those of my employers, though I'm sure they agree :^)
 -----Original Message----- Sent:
 Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
 Oracle on NT runs as
 ONE PROCESS
 with
 MULTIPLE THREADS
 for performance reasons (no more need for shared memory....context switches are a LOT less expensive, etc.) -----Original Message----- Sent:
 Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
 Hi, Mark,
 Async I/O is available on Windows, at least NT. It's not an easy topic. If you think you
 already know enough about operating systems in general, I suggest you read David Solomon's "Inside
 WindowsNT". For a lab test, launch Performance Monitor on your NT box and look at the counters for Cache.

I'm not sure by "single thread management" whether you mean NT can't have multiple processes or Oracle on NT runs as one thread. The former is obviously wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle Corporation and the question as to why was asked on this forum before without an answer (without an answer I can remember,
 that is).
 Yong Huang yong321_at_yahoo.com

you wrote:
Asynch I/O on a Windowze box? supresses a snigger...

To the best of my knowledge there are no Windows based system that can take advantage of this, single thread management can be enough a problem sometimes..
But, I may be wrong.. List?

Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! <A target=_blank
 href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/">http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ <<A target=_blank
 href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/">http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/>

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: <A target=_blank href="http://www.orafaq.com">http://www.orafaq.com <<A target=_blank href="http://www.orafaq.com">http://www.orafaq.com>
Author: yong huang INET: yong321_at_yahoo.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). ------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message has been scanned for viruses with Trend Micro's Interscan VirusWall. Received on Tue Feb 06 2001 - 14:36:24 CST