Re: [OT] HOWTO's of messing up Linux cluster?
- From: Paul Drake <bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: branimirp@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:17:45 -0500
Give this a try:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5840
http://www.quest-pipelines.com/pipelines/quest_experts.htm
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-26-002-20-PS-HE-SV
Linux Maximus, Part 1: Gladiator-like Oracle Performance
By Bert Scalzo on Sat, 2002-02-23 00:00.
Simple ways to achieve performance improvements using Linux for
enterprise-level databases like Oracle.
A good reference would likely be tpc reports for Oracle on one of the
"Enterprise" Linux distributions.
Might you consider benchmarking the clustered configuration against a
stand-alone box, same OS, same version of Oracle (in other words,
non-clustered, non-SAN)?
also - dual boot laptops are pretty easy to maintain, if your hard
drive is large enough (hint).
hth.
Paul
<aside>
yes, I have RHEL 3.0 ES update2 running on the laptop, along with XP sp2.
WinXP SP2 was a huge incentive for booting into the RHEL side of things, btw.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:30:12 -0500, Branimir Petrovic
<branimirp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Situation:
> Early stages of development project; same small database runs on
> development PCs, early build is given to customer for "look and
> feel" and training purposes.
>
> Sad facts:
> "PC Vulgaris" (P4 @ 2.8 GHz with _one_ IDE drive running WinXP)
> /w Oracle 9.2 db outperforms by factor of FIVE (meaning exact same
> batch jobs run at least 5 TIMES FASTER!!!???) two node Oracle 9.2
> cluster on Linux (RH AS3). Beats it by huge margin it every single
> time.
>
> Hardware at customer's site is 6 month old (implying relatively
> new hardware) 2 P4-Xeon CPUs server forming two node Oracle 9.2
> cluster connected to dedicated (this cluster only, dedicated
> to this project only) SAN (with unknown number of drives).
>
> Question:
> If you were really incompetent SA/DBA what would be easy ways
> to duplicate the above requirement? (achieve five times
> worse performance using much "stronger" hardware)
>
> From whatever little I know of ways problematic database is set
> up and configured, I'd say it is not the Oracle that is messed up,
> but the underlying OS.
>
> Being at arms length from the problem (due to mountains of political
> bs. - "us" vs. "them"), and quite frankly due to my own shortcomings
> with Unix/Linux, I am in no position to help in any meaningful way.
> Still curiosity factor is strong - what could possibly be so wrong
> with this RAC?
>
> Wild guesses - welcomed :-)
>
> Branimir
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
