if u have SQL access u can sneak a peak into that.
Deep
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Stephens <ChrisStephens_at_affina.com>
To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: shot in the dark applications performance problem....
> I didn't see my response go through so I'll post it again....
>
> Database version is 9203.
>
> ..i agree...there are too many pieces...and unfortunately, we've caught
the
> company misleading us several times.
>
> ...looking into whether or not is mts................they aren't letting
us
> into the system!!!.....they claim no.
>
> thanks
>
> chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kanagaraj [mailto:john.kanagaraj_at_hds.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:11 AM
> To: 'oracle-l_at_freelists.org'
> Subject: RE: shot in the dark applications performance problem....
>
> Chris,
>
> This sounds *very* much like a locking (enqueue) issue. Was the
application
> changed in any way (trigger, packaged code, etc.) to use a table row for
> generating sequence numbers? I have also seen such problems when the
> key_value is generated as a select max(key_value) from table and
everything
> queues up behind this....
>
> Look at the output of the following query:
>
> Select event, count(*) from v$session_wait
> Group by event
>
> If you see 'enqueue' in this output with a count of 1 (or more), then this
> theory is correct. You can then look at V$LOCK, V$SESSION, V$SQL and
> DBA_OBJECTS to find out further information.... (and the list can help you
> here with this script).
>
> Hth,
> John Kanagaraj <><
> DB Soft Inc
> Phone: 408-970-7002 (W)
>
> Listen to great, commercial-free christian music 24x7x365 at
> http://www.klove.com
>
> ** The opinions and facts contained in this message are entirely mine and
do
> not reflect those of my employer or customers **
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> >[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Stephens
> >Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 7:34 AM
> >To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> >Subject: shot in the dark applications performance problem....
> >
> >
> >Let me preface all of this by stating that I realize there is
> >very little
> >chance of a resolution to this from the explanation I'm about
> >to give...but
> >it thought I'd try and describe the problem here and see if it
> >sparks any
> >suggestions....
> >
> >
> >The company I work for has outsourced an applications implementation.
> >Everything has been running fine. Currently we run 2 call
> >center apps out
> >of the thing. This past weekend the company changed our
> >architecture from a
> >1-tier system to a 2-tier system. (not sure if that's standard apps
> >architectures or not) When the reps began taking calls after
> >that change,
> >performance slowed to a halt. They have now been taking phone calls on
> >paper for 5 days now. The company has reverted back to the 1-tier
> >architecture but the performance problem still exists. The
> >people testing
> >the system describe the problem as follows:
> >
> >==
> >
> >...one person running the call flows=>performance is fine.
> >
> >
> >
> >...several persons running the call flows=>EXACTLY 1 minute
> >delays between
> >screens.
> >
> >
> >
> >...several more persons running the call flows=>EXACTLY 2 minute delays
> >between screens.
> >
> >
> >
> >...several more persons running the call flows=>EXACTLY 3 minute delays
> >between screens. (weird)
> >
> >
> >
> >==
> >
> >apparently there is a script that can be run that just goes through the
> >screens without running ANY of the database code and the wait
> >behavior is
> >the same. ????
> >
> >
> >
> >I checked the machines involved from top and they are barely
> >being worked.
> >
> >
> >
> >I checked the waits in the database and the largest event time is from
> >'sqlnet message from client'.
> >
> >
> >
> >The company restored the system to a previous incarnation and
> >it worked just
> >fine.
> >
> >
> >
> >Something is very very wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >....and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> >Sorry for the vagueness.
> >
> >
> >
> >...questions welcomed.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks for any info!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> >put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> >--
> >Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> >FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
http://www.orafaq.com
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sat Feb 14 2004 - 01:27:06 CST
