rightoo alan :) On 23 November 2011 19:23, Guillermo Alan Bort <cicciuxdba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <disclaimer>this is a strictly unhelpful comment </disclaimer> > I'm curious as to why you want to further reduce the apply time. Are you > experiencing a delay in the standby because it takes 45 seconds to apply > the archivelogs? > > One of the key concepts of tuning in knowing when to stop, so perhaps if > you are experiencing no problems with this apply time it's time to leave it > be and move on to the next problem (there's always a next problem... > otherwise life would be boring) > > hope that wasn't too unhelpful > Alan.- > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:23 PM, kapil vaish <kapilvaish1@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Guys , > > > > we have physical standby database for one of our biggest database. > Scripts > > ship the archived log to standby server and then using parallel 32, > manual > > recovery is performed (thru scripts) . Archived log size is 2 GB and > daily > > production archive generation is aorund 2.5 TB. We are trying to increase > > performance on our standby database. We tried tuning various standby > > related parameters and IO, maximum apply rate we could achieve is 45 sec > > per archive log. Can you suggest any other tunings you may have seen in > > your environments ? any pointers are appreciated .. > > > > thanks > > kapil Vaish > > -- > > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > > > > > > > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- ============================================= TRUTH WINS AT LAST, DO NOT FORGET TO SMILE TODAY ============================================= -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l