Re: RE: So how big is your buffer cache ?
- From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:02:08 -0600 (MDT)
The problem isn't recommending more hardware or more resources. The problem is
making recommendations in the absence of facts.
For those who read the thread on CDOS, please note that the original poster
resolved his own problems by discovering a few bad SQL statements and tuning
them. First identify the problem, then consider whether to fix it or feed it.
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-- File: RE: So how big is your buffer cache ?
Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.sagelogix.com by ocs.sagelogix.com
with ESMTP id 34728311093872756; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:32:36 -0600
Received: by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix, from userid 16)
id 58E94A8390; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:24:34 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180])
by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DADA8206
for <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:24:17 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id A5AA772D98F; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 06911-79; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id E353E72D2BE; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:29:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:10 -0500
(EST)
X-Original-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 6E89A72D970
for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 06926-43 for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 9421272D96A
for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 204.127.197.113 ([204.127.197.113])
by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP
id <2004083013304901500m82mie>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:30:49 +0000
Received: from [192.35.84.5] by 204.127.197.113;
Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:30:48 +0000
From: ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: So how big is your buffer cache ?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:30:48 +0000
Message-Id:
<083020041330.27947.41332C08000A7AE700006D2B2200745672079D9A00000E09A1020E979D@xxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Jul 16 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: cnlhbl9nYWZmdXJpQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-archive-position: 8566
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-list: oracle-l
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mail.sagelogix.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=3.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no
version=2.63
X-Spam-Level:
I didn't read the whole article. However, one of the arguments appears to be to
tell a client to just buy more hardware. Is this always bad? Given the relative
costs of hardware vs. personnel? In many cases it might be alot cheaper to just
add hardware than it would be to hire alot of developers to re-write an
application. It takes alot of 3GL developers to accomplish much of anything.
Typical government rates are $60/hour billed to the federail government. That
comes to about $115,000/year. Lets say you can get RAC and add another server
for $75,000.
Just bringing up a point for discussion. I would think that as hardware gets
more and more advanced, it will become cheaper and cheaper to throw hardware at
something...
any comments?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » Re: RE: So how big is your buffer cache ?
