I got hung up on "set up as a tunnel". In my limited experience that sounds like you're going out on the public internet rather than a dedicated T1 or what have you. Again, in my limited experience, that means all bets are off as far as performance goes. Is the SW connection the same? Finn On 1/31/08, David Taft <oradbt054@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mark, > > It is a materialized view complete refresh. The source is always the same > (US-EC). The ultimate target is in a new data center (US-SE). This refresh > was duplicated to US-SW as a sanity check comparison. Your last statement > about the queue situation is interesting. When we graphed our throughput > testing on the refresh, it does start out faster and then steps down over > time. We are in the process of rerunning all tests. One piece of info I > was given before needs to be corrected. When asked in a meeting (I didn't > attend), the network group did say they could give us traceroute statistics, > but they said it wouldn't show anything because our connection is set up as > a tunnel. I am guessing that means that even if there are router hops along > the way, we can't see them from inside the tunnel? Also, I agree with > everything you said in the second paragraph. I got pulled into this > situation after it had already progressed to the point it is at now. I am > hoping we can find a resolution rather than digressing to trying to prove > somebody else's stuff is the problem. > > David > > > On Jan 31, 2008 4:16 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Is there some reason that you think the amount of data across the > > network > > will be the same for the US-SW to US-EC refresh as for the US-SE to > > US-EC > > refresh? I guess I am getting at precisely what do you mean when you > > write > > "That same refresh...?" Are duplicate threads of changes being made at > > US-SW > > and US-SE so when the refresh is made data is identical? Are they both > > complete refreshes? > > > > And of course it is entirely possible in a queue situation to have a > > large > > chunk transmitter like FTP work okay while a small chunk, chatty > > tranmitter > > like a materialized view refresh gets differentially slower and slower. > > Think of an up escalator feeding a slide. One person per step, no matter > > how > > big (or small). Even though the occupation of the slide is low and the > > large > > persons move many pounds down the slide relatively quickly and the itsy > > bitsy children get just as many turns on the up escalator, the little > > kids > > move pounds down the slide very slowly. > > > > >