On May 8, 8:31 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Pat <pat.ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:c3b1b601-abd9-4d2c-acaa-
> e4d947b44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Working set is
> > hard to estimate, but in analagous 100G systems I see a buffer hit
> > ratio or around 70% with a 2.3 G SGA (about as big as I can get it on
> > a 32 bit OS). Based on this and a fair amount of spitball analysis I'd
> > guess the working set on the new box to be around 8-10G.
>
> Choose any hit ratio
>
> http://www.oracledba.co.uk/tips/choose.htm
>
> Using BCHR for anything other than pure wishful dreaming,
> is like using Tarot cards to select your spouse.
>
> There is NO, NO, NO relation****p between raw database size (200GB)
> and database performance as measured by ANY metric!
>
> Good Luck on your search for the Holy Grail!
What I want to do is, as much as possible, serve data out of cache. On
analogous 32 bit boxes with a 2.3G SGA, I'm seeing an awful lot of
physical IOs, enough that many of my queries are spending > 50% of
their time in IO wait.
The classic solution to this is:
add more memory
What i want to know is if there's a potential downside to throwing
memory at the problem. I have the hardware budget to buy an aweful lot
of memory, but I don't want to spend it there if there if it'll be
counterproductive.
|
