Infact the cache hit ratio that Oracle suggests is the minimum good value is 95%. Anything below that is bad news. The reason is pretty obvious - RAM transfer speed is around 3.2G/sec these days, whilst even the best array isn't going to give more than 400MB/sec, and that's not even starting to talk about seek time. anything below 90% is not going to keep even the best disc hardware saturated. I know that our dataset is 99% cached, and therefore better CPUs/better RAM has a huge impact on overall performance.
Alex Turner NetEconomist On 11 Jan 2005 10:39:01 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > heh, our apps do tend to be CPU bound. Generally, I think the extra CPU > > horsepower is worth the investment until you get to the really high end > > cpus. > > I find that while most applications I work with shouldn't be cpu intensive > they do seem end up being cpu bound quite frequently. What happens is that 90% > of the workload has a working set that fits in RAM. So the system ends up > being bound by the memory bus speed. That appears exactly the same as > cpu-bound, though I'm unclear whether increasing the cpu clock will help. > > It's quite possible to have this situation at the same time as other queries > are i/o bound. It's quite common to have 95% of your workload be frequently > executed fast queries on commonly accessed data and 5% be bigger data > warehouse style queries that need to do large sequential reads. > > Incidentally, the same was true for Oracle on Solaris. If we found excessive > cpu use typically meant some frequently executed query was using a sequential > scan on a small table. Small enough to fit in RAM but large enough to consume > lots of cycles reading it. > > -- > greg > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly