Re: log buffer size and log file syncs
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 18:54:26 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMHX9JKmh-A=SXgAf0UHeNAvWZ5YE+Nze7pXkjQhbRNmqH01sQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jon,
Increasing LGWR priority would only help if it was currently starving for CPU / or waiting too long in the CPU runqueue... Unfortunately on Linux there's no easy way to measure this directly. If your load is low (let's say only 10 on a 32 CPU machine) then I'd expect that LGWR priority change isn't going to help much.
However, I don't like to fix a problem first and then see whether the problem existed in first place (trial and error), that's why I asked for extra information / hard evidence in form of LGWR's snapper output ...
Tanel.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM, CRISLER, JON A <JC1706_at_att.com> wrote:
> Red Hat Linux 5. We have async DG running but Real Time apply is also
> configured, and redo logs are mirrored. I believe LGWR is not starved for
> CPU given the overall conditions for the system, but I am finding some info
> that putting lgwr in a real-time OS priority would be a good thing.****
>
> ** **
>
> The default for _*high_priority*_processes is LMS*|VKTM but I have seen
> some Metalink notes about adding LGWR. I also saw a blog post that
> mentioned you discussed setting this parameter at a HOTSOS seminar, and
> this is something we are considering. Given all the CPU power in this
> server, and all the LMS processes, I don’t this would pose a problem.****
>
> ** **
>
> alter system set "_high_priority_processes"='LMS*|VKTM|LGWR' scope=spfile
> sid='*';****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* tanel_at_poderc.com [mailto:tanel_at_poderc.com] *On Behalf Of *Tanel
> Poder
> *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2012 6:21 PM
>
> *To:* CRISLER, JON A
> *Cc:* oracle-l
> *Subject:* Re: log buffer size and log file syncs****
>
> ** **
>
> Which OS are you on? If it happens to be Solaris, then prstat -mLp *PID*would show the scheduling latency for LGWR. This would help to find out
> whether LGWR is CPU starved or not.... what load averages do you have?****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, what does snapper say when ran on LGWR? If you have synchronous DG
> for example, then LGWR would wait for the LNS ack too in addition to the
> log file parallel write wait, before returning OK back to the committing
> session ...****
>
> ** **
>
> Tanel.****
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 5:56 PM, CRISLER, JON A <JC1706_at_att.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Interesting thoughts Tanel: in this case of this specific app, the
> majority of the work is made of up small commits to a handful of tables on
> a 6 node RAC cluster. I/O times are generally quite good, and with 32
> cores per node the CPU and load average is very low. Its 11gR1 – I was
> wondering if some of the tweaks to put LGWR at “real time” priority that
> are mentioned for 10g also apply to 11g.****
>
> ** **
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue May 01 2012 - 10:54:26 CDT