Hi Recently we upgraded a solaris rac database from 10.2.0.4 to 10.2.0.5, after that we noticed all scatter reads comes with i/o slave wait as well. For example select /*+ full(a) */ count(*) from SVV.CAP_SIG a where rownum < 500001 call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.01 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 2 0.60 2.01 10833 10847 0 1 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 4 0.61 2.02 10833 10847 0 1 Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited ---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------ SQL*Net message to client 3 0.00 0.00 SQL*Net message from client 3 21.58 21.59 library cache pin 1 0.00 0.00 row cache lock 4 0.00 0.00 rdbms ipc reply 1 0.00 0.00 db file sequential read 1 0.01 0.01 * i/o slave wait 677 0.03 1.10 db file scattered read 677 0.03 1.16* gc cr multi block request 527 0.00 0.39 gc current grant 2-way 10 0.00 0.00 select /*+ full(a) */ * from admksk.qos_jpo a where rownum < 500001 call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 33335 9.24 21.93 54240 83659 0 500000 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 33337 9.24 21.94 54240 83659 0 500000 Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited ---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------ SQL*Net message to client 33335 0.00 0.00 gc cr grant 2-way 1 0.00 0.00 db file sequential read 4 0.00 0.00 gc cr multi block request 2731 0.00 1.96 * i/o slave wait 3390 0.04 11.25 db file scattered read 3390 0.04 11.56* SQL*Net message from client 33335 0.00 3.90 SQL*Net more data to client 186934 0.00 3.11 There is a bug introduced with 10.2.0.5, Bug 9772888 but seems to me is not a performance bug, rather it generates more trace than usual (at least in Solaris since AIO is dynamic). Anyone faced this issue :-? Or this bug actually slows down the queries? Thanks Alex