the old server is a 2 cpu single core 3,6 GHz Xeon. But I think the
bottleneck is the i/o. It are 2 LDs as RAID1 in SCSI U320. LD1 is C: and
LD2 is D: which contains the databasefiles.

The new server will be a Xeon E5440 or 5460 and 4 or 6 SAS-Drives. With
4 Drives I will make a RAID 10. In this LD I will put C: and D.
Otherwise with 6 Drives I make a RAID1 for C: an a RAID10 for D:.

The CPU has ca. 4000 passmark (benchmark), the old has ca. 1000.
And the i/o-device? How much faster will my config be confirmed with the
old U320? I know that there are a lot of factors you (and I) don't know...

On Aug 14, 12:47*pm, Alex Busam <abu... (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:
I wouldn't use an image copy on a machine that wasn't exactly like the
original. I wouldn't trust anyone to make a machine that was exactly
like the original either. But that's just me with my hard times
experience. YMMV. Just changing the network address on the same
machine is too much for some people.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...es-3787457.php

On Aug 15, 5:47*am, Alex Busam <abu... (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

and will it stay a W2003 server?
Is this Windows Enterprise Server or simply Windows Server?
There is a fundamental difference between the two. Read on.


It'll be the I/O unless you are running Enterprise Server. No matter
what.

Windows server has one I/O queue for each drive letter. Each queue
has a depth limit of about 5 before it starts hitting throttle race
conditions and bottlenecks. So if you have more than 5 database files
on concurrent access per drive letter, you got a virtually guaranteed
I/O bottleneck regardless of the hw used.

The alternative is to use Windows Enterprise Server - which has a
completely different I/O queueing mechanism and strategy- or spread
the I/O across a LOT of drive letters, or use a SAN with variable
queue lengths for each connection, or a combination of the last two.

Thank you very much for your answer!
It's a normal windows 2003 Server, not enterprise. Interesting. Don't
know this difference.

I think the mean problem is, that the config of oracle is for a big
group of ERPs for concerns from small to big. My knowlegde about oracle
is not much big and we have definitivly a service agreement with the
group and can not do what we want. The ERP is continuitly developt and
there is no alternative.
The parameters are for middle mass of ERP, but we have 4 branches and
much more articles than the rest.

Now I will move the system to the new server and found some improvements
(a clone is running on our esxi to "play" for) and discuss with our
service provider for the ERP.

I have an old version of toad to test and try to optimize the
parameters. The new system with i/o about SAS, 15K, 2 LDs with RAID1,
maybe a RAID10 of 4 drives will be 2 or 3 times faster then the U320
with 2 x RAID1. So this and opimized parameters will bring much more
performance, double would be ok for us.



Am 16.08.2012 09:18, schrieb Noons:

On Aug 18, 1:06*am, Alex Busam <abu... (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

Get hold of a copy of SLOB (google it, it's in Kevin Closson's site).
Use it to stress test what the system can do now, and then compare to
what it can do in the new hardware. The good thing about SLOB is it
can use a vanilla db installation and it doesn't need raw I/O like
orion does. IOW: perfect for Wintel.
The actual absolute numbers are not as important. What you are after
is the delta improvement you can get in the new system, and the
relative effect of any changes you make at h/w level, config or actual.

......and what happens? It doesn't run? It run's on two cores? It runs
full power and I have an insufficient license?

(For a quadcore xeon or opteron you need 4 x 0,5 = 2 licenses and I
would like to know whats happen with the database server)

Alex:

# .....and what happens? It doesn't run? It run's on two cores? It
runs full power and I have an insufficient license?

Oracle software does no "checking" at run time how many CPU licenses
you purchased. It does not know ... there is no linkage anywhere
between executable code and purchased licenses or support agreements.
( Now you can configure your installed software to talk back and forth
with Oracle semi directly and if you do that ... god knows ... but
most of us never do that ).

In other words Oracle trusts their customers to behave responsibly and
professionally. At least until the time that Oracle conducts a
license audit on you. Then it may be time to cut a big check if your
company is not licensed appropriately.

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/index.html

Seriously it may be time to talk to Oracle sales or an Oracle partner
about licensing stuff. No matter what it found on the internet there
are always discussions and agreements made with Oracle that can change
any of the publicly available terms/conditions or "list prices".

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:56:30 -0700, John Hurley wrote:


But Oracle sales people will find out, sooner or later, especially if OCM
is installed and configured. And then they'll come in force, demanding
your first born. They'll do anything for a fistful of dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqjcoTzhaIk


--
Mladen Gogala
http://mgogala.freehostia.com

Mladen:


Nobody runs like that do they? Not even the rookies fall for that ...
do they?

On Aug 26, 5:02*pm, John Hurley <johnthehur... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
I would expect they do, but unless someone tells us the percentage
usage, we can't know. Maybe we should ask a blog
https://www.google.com/search?q=ocm+...ogs.oracle.com

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/08/google/