RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:40:49 -0700
>>>I check my data and found it is actually 102 GB in 66
>>>minutes for a rate of 26 MB/sec for a full table scan.
>>>"Sequential reads" are much slower, around 8-10 MB/sec.
>>>
You should not be scanning data with db file sequential
read though. Is PQO broken on your setup? In my experience, having
a single forground process suck up 26MB/s is pretty good
considering the size of I/O requests those are. I'd work this
out until you get direct path reads and also ensure your
multiblock read count is set so that the direct path reads
will be a minimum of 1MB.
>>> 2 HBA per SAN. I think 1Gb, but not sure
>>> Veritas file system
uh, quickIO or ODM? or just normal ?
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- References:
- RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- From: Keith Moore
Other related posts:
- » Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » Re: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » Re: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- » RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- RE: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )
- From: Keith Moore