Re: Q: Filesystem choice for log_archive_dest

Agreed,
but may be I'm missing something here: if the "writing" from sqlplus to the spool file is so much slower, why the would the writing from online redo to filesystem archive be faster? What's the difference between the two writings?


Thanks,
Dimitre


----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: Q: Filesystem choice for log_archive_dest


>phone company with all those SMS services). So now I'm trying 
to find the technical explanation of why one could need a
direct IO filesystem for the archived log files.


life is an unending series of choices. If you want to
preserve your memory, you don't want to spool through the
buffered path. If you cannot configure enough logs and
fast enough disk to meet the requirement in the direct path,
you have to go buffered. No cut and dried answer, but those
are the ingredients to consider.

So, we ran another test today with another query, the results:
spooling on the direct IO filesystem: 30min, on the local
filesystem: 49s.


there should be no mystery that writing to memory is
orders of magnitude faster than disk.






Thanks
Dimitre


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: RE: Q: Filesystem choice for log_archive_dest



>So I was wondering, could the direct IO be beneficial for the
log_archive_dest filesystem in some cases?

yep...see my last post. This just needs tuning. how many
online logs do you have and what size are they?

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l 

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: