Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: 64-Bit Oracle on Windows 2003
Anjo.
On 8/16/06, Freeman, Donald <dofreeman_at_state.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I want more users and faster transactions. The system receives web
> entries from hospitals and doctors offices reporting instances of particular
> reportable diseases. There are probably a 1000 users with very low
> reporting. We also receive batch loads of lab reports. This is increasing
> as we add more labs to our reporting base. Presently there are only about
> 2500 inserts a day. A staff of about 250 public health workers access these
> records and create investigations based on disease reports. In the event of
> a major outbreak the system will go clunk very fast.
>
> We are using an older HP SAN running RAID 10. I don't know why Itanium.
> I think somebody had a magazine article saying Itanium was preferred for
> database servers.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* akolk_at_oraperf.com [mailto:akolk_at_oraperf.com] *On Behalf Of *Anjo
> Kolk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:06 PM
> *To:* dofreeman_at_state.pa.us
> *Cc:* oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: 64-Bit Oracle on Windows 2003
>
> Don,
>
> Define performance in your case:
> - Do you want more users?
> - Do you want more tx per user?
> - Do you want faster tx per user?
>
> Other Questions:
> - How many Raid drives?
> - Why Itanium? HP has better boxes with AMDs :-)
>
> If you want more users, then going with 64bit will do that for you (larger
> shared pool, buffer cache, and more process memory to run all the windows
> threads), if you would use the same CPU 32 -> 64, you would see a drop of
> around 10 percent in performance (every thing else should stay the same).
> The way to improve performance is to reduce physical I/O, by increasing the
> Oracle Buffer Cache (so 6GB buffer caches are the minimum :-))
>
> Any way, answer the quesions and we can give you a better advise,
>
> Anjo.
>
> On 8/16/06, Freeman, Donald <dofreeman_at_state.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I need some feedback on upgrading to 64-Bit. We are a state public
> > health agency. My project team has proposed that during our regular server
> > replacement cycle that our next purchase to replace our OLTP RAC system
> > should be HP 64-bit servers, each w/ dual 1.6GHz Itanium processors, 16
> > GB RAM, 146 GB RAID drives, dual power supplies, and Windows Server 2003
> > 64-bit.
> >
> > We are getting a lot of kickback from our director about performance.
> > All we can do is speculate about how this is going to work in our
> > environment. We have had Oracle in and they told us we'd get up to a
> > five-fold increase in performance in an OLTP system. Right now our 32-bit
> > architecture tops out at about 60 users. We should be able to respond to a
> > public health emergency during which time it should be able to handle a lot
> > more users. We think this would get us there.
> >
> > Does anybody have any wonder stories about how their life changed after
> > 64 bit? Here is the exact quote I am trying to address:
> >
> > "…. I am concerned that we are going to spend over $100,000 for 64 bit
> > servers without understanding what we will get for this. I understand this
> > should improve performance, but it is not clear that we have a benchmark in
> > place. I am not in favor of buying equipment in hopes that performance will
> > improve anecdotically. I would like to see some hard numbers that will
> > point to whether or not this investment delivers what is promised?"
> >
> > Don Freeman
> > Database Administrator 1
> > Bureau of Information Technology
> > Pennsylvania Department of Health
> > (717) 703-5782
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anjo Kolk
> Owner and Founder OraPerf Projects
> tel: +31-577-712000
> mob: +31-6-55340888
>
>
-- Anjo Kolk Owner and Founder OraPerf Projects tel: +31-577-712000 mob: +31-6-55340888 -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 12:38:13 CDT
![]() |
![]() |