| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: RE: So how big is your buffer cache ?
The problem isn't recommending more hardware or more resources. The problem is making recommendations in the absence of facts.
For those who read the thread on CDOS, please note that the original poster resolved his own problems by discovering a few bad SQL statements and tuning them. First identify the problem, then consider whether to fix it or feed it.
Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> Received: from mail.sagelogix.com by ocs.sagelogix.com
with ESMTP id 34728311093872756; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:32:36 -0600 Received: by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix, from userid 16)
id 58E94A8390; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:24:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180])
by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DADA8206 for <tim_at_sagelogix.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:24:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id A5AA772D98F; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:35 -0500 (EST)Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06911-79; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id E353E72D2BE; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:34 -0500 (EST)Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:10 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 6E89A72D970 for <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:09 -0500 (EST)Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06926-43 for <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:09 -0500 (EST)
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 9421272D96A
for <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 204.127.197.113 ([204.127.197.113])
by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP
id <2004083013304901500m82mie>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:30:49 +0000
Received: from [192.35.84.5] by 204.127.197.113;
Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:30:48 +0000
Content-type: text/plain X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mail.sagelogix.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=3.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63
I didn't read the whole article. However, one of the arguments appears to be to tell a client to just buy more hardware. Is this always bad? Given the relative costs of hardware vs. personnel? In many cases it might be alot cheaper to just add hardware than it would be to hire alot of developers to re-write an application. It takes alot of 3GL developers to accomplish much of anything. Typical government rates are $60/hour billed to the federail government. That comes to about $115,000/year. Lets say you can get RAC and add another server for $75,000. Just bringing up a point for discussion. I would think that as hardware gets more and more advanced, it will become cheaper and cheaper to throw hardware at something... any comments?
 |
 |