Yes, we set the parameter as true in 10203 and 10204. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:50 PM, <Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Clearer, would be ‘…so did you change it in 10203’? > > > > Joel Patterson > Database Administrator > 904 727-2546 > ------------------------------ > > *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:35 AM > *To:* eagle.f@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* RE: "log file parallel write" wait times get increased a lot > after upgrading from 10203 to 10204 > > > > The default for _*lgwr_async*_io = false, right? At least it is in my > database. > > > > It is a hidden parameter, so was it changed in 10203? Perhaps … Not sure > how much documentation there is on these parameters, but might be inclined > to believe that because they are hidden there is a shortage of > documentation. > > > > > > > > Joel Patterson > Database Administrator > 904 727-2546 > ------------------------------ > > *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Eagle Fan > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:07 AM > *To:* oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* "log file parallel write" wait times get increased a lot after > upgrading from 10203 to 10204 > > > > hi: > > I noticed that after upgraded from 10203 to 10204, the number of waits of > parallel write got increased a lot. > > We are using lgwr async IO (_lgwr_async_io=true and disk_asynch_io=true). > OS is Solaris 10. > > SNAP_TIME TOTAL_WAITS TIME_WAITED > > ----------------- ----------- ----------- > > 20100425 00:00:00 1193 20 > > 20100426 00:00:00 1187 19 > > 20100427 00:00:00 83753743 3122627 -- after upgraded from 10203 to > 10204 > > 20100428 00:00:00 94783396 3353594 > > 20100429 00:00:00 96792543 3320591 > > 20100430 00:00:00 98197875 3245199 > > 20100501 00:00:00 98144618 3162137 > > > I checked several databases, all of them had the same behavior. > > I tried to find some docs to explain this on metalink, but I didn't find > anything. > > Did anybody also have such change before? What's the reason behind this? > > And I'm curious what the result is if _lgwr_async_io is false. > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > Eagle Fan (www.dbafan.com) > -- Eagle Fan (www.dbafan.com)