Re: see higher CPU usage after increase SGA

  • From: "zhu chao" <chao_ping@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:47:03 +0800

Hi, Terry:
        I am trying to give out the real number, I won't try to fool your guys 
and waste your time.
        We are running Sun Fire V880, with 8*1.2G CPu and 16G memory, and a 
HDS9570 15*73GB Raid10 storage.
        The following is the IO statistics from unix(iostat -xnz 2)
                    extended device statistics              
    r/s    w/s   kr/s   kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t  %w  %b device
    0.5    0.0    4.0    0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0    0.7   0   0 c1t0d0
  296.5    0.5 7364.2    4.0  0.0  1.1    0.0    3.6   0  71 
c3t50060E8000439AA0d2
  171.5   55.0 1372.0 1346.8  0.0  0.9    0.0    3.8   0  66 
c3t50060E8000439AA0d1
        We did not setup the storage with optimal setting, which according to 
HDS engineer, should be setup as 3* (2D+2P) raid group + 2standby. While we 
setup it like (6D+6P)+2 standby .
    
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Terry Sutton 
  To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:35 PM
  Subject: Re: see higher CPU usage after increase SGA


  Your data doesn't seem to make sense.  You say that your disk hits 75% busy, 
but you're only doing 448 physical I/Os per second.  On a system your size I 
don't see how that level of PIOs would keep a disk that busy.

  --Terry


  > Hi,
  >     I did not post the all information within that email, else it will be
  > too lenghy, and few people will read it through.
  >     1. There is no pagein/out taking place. Vmstat shows sr=0 and sar -g
  > shows no swapin/out.
  >     2. At this time, neither CPU nor Disk is not bottleneck now. We can
  > support more users. Disk is reaching its capacity soon, as
  > BUSY%(iostat -xn ) is at 75%+ during peak time. This is why we increase SGA
  > to reduce the load on disk storage.
  >     3. You said it can because larger sga caused scanning the LATCH using
  > more CPU. I also think it is possible. But difficult to verify.
  >     4.It is difficult to find out who used more resource. As there are 800+
  > connection to the database, using the same username. And I did not record
  > the old v$sesstat. Even record that old v$sesstat, it is difficult to
  > compare that 5% in the 800+ sessions.
  > 
  >     It is just I am not sure what caused the more CPU usage. Hotsos notes
  > cannot explain everything, I read most of the notes there more than 5 times.
  > One of them is LIO consumes much CPU, which I do not quite agree, according
  > to my tune experience in the past several weeks.
  >     There was a HUGE SQL(which used 30% of total system buffer_gets
  > according to statspack report). I changed the SQL, and later it used less
  > than 0.5% of total system buffer_gets(it just dissappear from statspack
  > report), but system CPU usage just drop by less than 5% from statspack
  > report(compare the CPU used by this session before/after change)!.
  > 
  > Regards
  > Zhu Chao.
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: "Mark W. Farnham" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>
  > To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:03 PM
  > Subject: RE: see higher CPU usage after increase SGA
  > 
  > 
  > > Now, trying to be actually useful, I think your next task is to find out
  > > where time is being spent. If analysis shows that the big consumer(s)
  > is/are
  > > already doing as little work as possible, then you make the restrictive
  > > system component faster (or discover that it is not cost effective to make
  > > the bottleneck resource faster.) If analysis shows that big consumer(s)
  > > is/are doing more work than required for the task at hand, you work to
  > > improve the big consumer(s).
  > >
  > > mwf
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
  > > Behalf Of zhu chao
  > > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:31 AM
  > > To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > > Subject: see higher CPU usage after increase SGA
  > >
  > >
  > > Hi,
  > >     I once saw Jonathan said at metalink that huge SGA does not help in
  > many
  > > case, But no further discuss at that topic later.  Last night we added 1Gb
  > > to oracle sga and we see fewer disk read but higher CPU usage.
  > >
  > >     Fewer disk read of course cut CPU usage, but larger buffer cache
  > > management in unix and oracle, seems caused higher CPU usage. Has someone
  > > also have similar experience? How to explain the higher CPU usage?
  > >
  > >     We have a 16GB memory sun 880 with 10G data cache. As disk read get
  > > higher and higher , and not much SQL to tune we deciede to increase data
  > > buffer from 10G to 11GB, as there is still 1.5G free memory on the host.
  > >
  > >     We expect to see some CPU usage drop, as disk read drop by 30%. But
  > > after 1 day's run, we saw higher CPU usage then before we increase the
  > SGA.
  > >
  > >     http://www.cnoug.org/attachments/LDBn_cpu.bmp (the Excel picture that
  > > shows the CPU usage before and after increase sga).
  > >     The following Statistics from Oracle shows the load profile before and
  > > after SGA increase:
  > >
  > >                   LIO                    PIO            Transaction/Second
  > > CPU usage in oracle
  > >       10gb        47,990.70              448.68               76.54
  > > 177.9
  > >       11gb        47,707.28             325.95                76.54
  > > 187.9
  > >       Change:     Nearly same           Disk read dropped   Transaction
  > rate
  > > CPU used increased.
  > >                                           30%               keep
  > consistent
  > > by 5%
  > >
  > >
  > >       Time I measure: 9 am ? 15pm.
  > >       Oracle: 5% increase.
  > >       Unix:    6% increase.
  > >
  > >
  > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
  > > 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
  > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
  > >
  > >
  > 
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------
  > 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: