Re: Is TNSPING = 1000ms OK? Oracle says it is
- From: Mark Brinsmead <mark.brinsmead@xxxxxxx>
- To: tjambu_freelists@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:59:07 -0700
Why different ping times for listeners on different ports? Well, in
general, each port will be serviced by a different listener. On a
server that is starved for memory, one of the listeners (an inactive
one) could be paged out of memory, while the other (a much more active
one) remains paged in. This *could* make a large difference in response
time. (Note: this is conjecture! Most OSes can do quite a bit of
paging in 1000ms.)
It's also possible for each listener to be listening on different IPs
(and network interfaces), and I would not be surprised to find that this
can also make a big difference under certain circumstances.
Tony Jambu wrote:
> Hi Mladen
>
> Will do some reading on it. But in the meantime,
> why is it that both TNSPING to the same server at the same
> time (to different ports) return different times? Who is the one
> that initial the 'type' ping. The initiator or 'target'
>
>
> ta
> tony
>
>
> At 12:06 AM 8/03/2006, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>
>
>> On 03/07/2006 07:55:20 AM, Tony Jambu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>> What? That is x50 slower than a normal tnsping to 1521
>>> and they tell me that this is acceptable?
>>>
>>>
>> It is perfectly acceptable, provided you are using CPIP (RFC1149)
>>
>> --
>> Mladen Gogala
>> http://www.mgogala.com
>>
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
