[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > I have encountered mixed opinions regarding which scheduler is > better for OLTP databases (mainly: Oracle). Solaris Internals site > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/FX_For_Databases > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/Application_Specific_Tuning#Tuning_Recommendations > recommends using FX for databases. > However http://blogs.sun.com/travi/entry/database_scaling_on_sun_fire > says: "We also tried different scheduling classes. FX as well as RT > but noticed that at even at high throughput the default TS scheduling > class performs the best.". > > While the former says in general the latter is strictly for CMT cpu. > But I don't belive (am I wrong ?) that it depends on cpu type. > Can anybody share his/her experience with changing scheduler for > OLTP (Oracle ?) databases ? > > Regards > przemol >
Our tests with industry standard oltp benchmarks showed that FX is better than TS. Of course we tested these on non-CMT platforms. Ravi did similar tests on CMT machines and found that FX does not help. I think the answer is "it depends" :-) (on the workload, on the load, on the CPU...) I think one of the reason FX helped was due to the fact that a certain FX priority level reduced migrations; and the cost of migrations are much higher on numa machines.. hth, -neel -- Neelakanth Nadgir http://blogs.sun.com/realneel _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
