RE: Higher CPU Utilisation on failover node under same workload
- From: Iggy Fernandez <iggy_fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Chris.Osborne@xxxxxxxxx" <chris.osborne@xxxxxxxxx>, "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 06:32:20 -0800
Hi, Chris,
My gut reaction is that you almost certainly have large variations over time on
your production system too so I am not surprised that there was a significant
difference when you compared one sample from the primary with one sample from
the standby (after switchover). You can write queries on the AWR tables to
print the workload over an extended period of time. I would be extremely
surprised if you did not see equal or greater variation on the primary over a
period of time.
Iggy
> From: Chris.Osborne@xxxxxxxxx
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Higher CPU Utilisation on failover node under same workload
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 13:20:10 +0000
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is my first post.
>
> I have an ongoing issue where I am seeing much increased CPU utilisation when
> a database is running on the failover node, compared to when it is running on
> the primary node.
> When we perform OS patching we fail from one node to the DR site, while the
> primary site is being patched.
> Both hosts are the same spec and config, and the database is configured
> identically on both hosts too.
>
> AWR Diff reports show that the workload is very similar.
>
> The 2nd period is where we see the problem
>
>
> 1st
> 2nd
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Event Wait Class Waits Time(s) Avg
> Time(ms) %DB time Event Wait Class
> Waits Time(s) Avg Time(ms) %DB time
> ------------------------------ ------------- ------------ ------------
> ------------- ----------- ------------------------------ -------------
> ------------ ------------ ------------- -----------
> db file sequential read User I/O 4,178,196 23,392.4
> 5.6 61.7 CPU time
> N/A 38,985.7 N/A 59.8
> CPU time N/A 10,138.9
> N/A 26.8 db file sequential read User I/O
> 4,581,489 23,083.5 5.0 35.4
> read by other session User I/O 325,114 1,866.3
> 5.7 4.9 db file parallel read User I/O
> 219,007 1,670.0 7.6 2.6
>
> db file parallel read User I/O 177,766 1,419.6
> 8.0 3.7 read by other session User I/O
> 246,088 1,307.7 5.3 2.0
> enq: TX - row lock contention Application 1,220 1,321.2
> 1083.0 3.5 enq: TX - row lock contention Application
> 651 618.6 950.2 0.9
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Host Configuration Comparison
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1st 2nd
> Diff %Diff
> ----------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
> -------------------- ---------
> Number of CPUs: 256 256
> 0 0.0
> Number of CPU Cores: 32 32
> 0 0.0
> Number of CPU Sockets: 4 4
> 0 0.0
> Physical Memory: 261632M 261632M
> 0M 0.0
> Load at Start Snapshot: 32.61 57.98
> 25.37 77.8
> Load at End Snapshot: 33.13 63.91
> 30.78 92.9
> %User Time: 6.03 4.95
> -1.07 -17.9
> %System Time: 4.82 15.19
> 10.37 215.1
>
> %Idle Time: 89.15 79.86
> -9.29 -10.4
> %IO Wait Time: 0 0
> 0 0.0
> Cache Sizes
>
> I know that we have a problem with the size of the connection pools on this
> database, and the fact that they are dynamic too concerns me. This issue is
> being worked on.
> My first thought is that fact that the single block read time is 10% faster
> could be meaning more of the sessions are runnable at any given point and
> slowing us down through context switching, but this may be a stretch...
> I am seeing the host reporting more CPU time spent on SYS rather than User
> time though.
>
> Any advice/pointers would be gratefully received.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
> Christopher Osborne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged,
> confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views
> expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the
> originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce,
> distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please
> note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our
> internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of
> British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky International AG and are used
> under licence. British Sky Broadcasting Limited (Registration No. 2906991),
> Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers
> Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect
> subsidiaries of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Registration No.
> 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated
> in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way,
> Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
Other related posts:
