RE: RE: A Tale of Two Servers...

I didn't dare to say it, but that were my thoughts as well. There is no way that the size of an L1-3 cache, any cache except Oracle's buffer pool, can have an effect on the number of LIOs. Their speed, yes but not their number. The best explanation I can come up with is that the data in the second, faster, server is better clustered, potentially by importing the data from the first server. Rebuilding the indexes on the first server may go some ways toward streamlining the acces, but the data may still be scattered all over the place. Unless the databases are clones of each other - which they obviously are not - you can not make a valid comparison between the two.

At 01:28 AM 4/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
> I wish I could put it more diplomatically but IMHO the answer you got
> from OWS is pure rubbish. I could agree to a 'hardware on amphetamines'
> explanation if the only difference was to be found in cpu time. But
> saying that CPU cache affects the LIO count (as opposed to speed) is
> utter nonsense; something like 2 or 3% at most of the Oracle kernel code
> is OS-dependent, do you seriously believe they can afford taking subtle
> hardware differences into account? Certainly not. OWS have jumped on the
> only difference they could see to find a reason to close the case.
>There is obviously something else, although I have no credible explanation
>coming to mind. Ian's db_block_size was an excellent idea. If this is the
>same, could there be a difference in the physical structure of indexes? I
>am thinking of something causing the equivalent of the table 'full scan up
>to the HWM' which has occasionally burnt some of us. Have you tried a
>VALIDATE INDEX (does it still exist?) on both databases? Or rebuilding all
>involved indexes on the slower server?

Wolfgang Breitling
Centrex Consulting Corporation
http://www.centrexcc.com

This email communication is intended as a private communication for the sole use of the primary addressee and those individuals listed for copies in the original message. The information contained in this email is private and confidential and if you are not an intended recipient you are hereby notified that copying, forwarding or other dissemination or distribution of this communication by any means is prohibited. If you are not specifically authorized to receive this email and if you believe that you received it in error please notify the original sender immediately. We honour similar requests relating to the privacy of email communications.

Cette communication par courrier electronique est une communication privee a l'usage exclusif du destinataire principal ainsi que des personnes dont les noms figurent en copie. Les renseignements contenus dans ce courriel sont confidentiels et si vous n'etes pas le destinataire prevu, vous etes avise, par les presentes que toute reproduction, tout transfert ou toute autre forme de diffusion de cette communication par quelque moyen que ce soit est interdit. Si vous n'etes pas specifiquement autorise a recevoir ce courriel ou si vous croyez l'avoir recu par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expediteur original immediatement. Nous respectons les demandes similaires qui touchent la confidentialite des communications par courrier electronique.

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Wolfgang Breitling
  INET: breitliw_at_centrexcc.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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).