hi here is where the issue is: "perhaps tuning is reqd,perhaps more hardware is reqd,perhaps SLA is wrong". exactly what i am trying to find. i do this when i "feel" that SLA is not viable ..but it would be great if i get stats on paper.
how do we renegotiate SLA? or how do we get a new value for SLA? thanks sai --- Mark Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree totally... Adding more databases to a > server doesn't invalidate a > negotiated SLA. If you can't meet the SLA then > someone has a problem. > Perhaps tuning is required, perhaps more hardware is > required, perhaps the > SLA is wrong and can be renegotiated. The issue > revolves more around > defining the SLA carefully and defining how to > resolve an SLA which is not > being met. > > If, for example, the networking guys destroy a > routing table and your > performance falls through the floor then the DBA > shouldn't be totally > responsible. The DBA might help to diagnose the > problem though. > > Personally I think the best way is to keep the SLA's > at a high level when > possible, such as "user can search for customer > within 5 seconds". The SLA > is realistic - it has a direct impact on someone's > ability to perform their > work, it is measurable - search for a customer, and > several things can be > done to help meet the SLA - add hardware, tune, > modify network config, > purge old data, etc. > > Regards, > Mark. > > > > > > > > DENNIS WILLIAMS > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > UCH.COM> cc: > > > Sent by: > Subject: RE: performance questions > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > 04/06/2003 01:24 > > > Please respond to > > > ORACLE-L > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sai - I think the whole point is to open this up for > discussion / > negotiation. My suggestion would be to agree with > the business users on a > "typical" query and the response time they expect. > Ideally response time is > measured at the user's terminal. But if necessary > just for the database, > you > might get agreement on a typical query and the > response time. > As far as adding more stuff to the server, that > is the whole point. If > you can add more stuff and the SLA is maintained, > great! Everybody's happy. > But if you add users/instances/etc., and the SLA > suffers, now you have a > discussion point for the users. Either somebody can > buy another server, or > somebody can agree to a higher SLA, etc. The point > is that you're talking, > getting issues aired, rather than you guys saying > @#$% users and the users > saying @#$% DBAs. > > > > Dennis Williams > DBA, 80%OCP, 100% DBA > Lifetouch, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:05 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > hi gurus > > this is a kind of query i have faced a few times in > the recent past and > which has really forced me to start this thread. > > as everyone knows, there is always what we call a > SLA or in other words a > service level agreement (may be called differently > in different places) > which infact means defining a time for any > transaction to go thru in the > database. This is very important in emvironments > which handle transactions > affecting sales or just normal queries against huge > databases which helps a > sales force or a front office customer support > force.. Defining this is > always a difficult task and i believe will keep > changing as time goes on - > factors like number of records,the number of > databases running on a > box(probably SLA was defined initially on a single > box-single db kind of > env > and now the same box has more > databases),memory,network,disk > performance,number of transactions or can i say the > load profile et al. > there have been cases where i have been asked > questions like why this query > took more time than SLA when it was running ok > sometime back. i find it > very > difficult to convince saying that ther! e are > factors affecting this and > not > just explain plan et al(correct me if i am wrong) or > in other words a > scenario that says my test environment is running > faster than prod > (everything on the db side are the same except the > way the disks are > configured or the load profile on both dbs). > > here is my question? is there a way to determine > this SLA. since it keeps > changing how do we really determine it. there is a > soltuion that comes > right > out saying abenchmark can help u do this but how do > we extrapolate or > assume > that there was no benchmark done at the beginning > how do we > validate/dtermine this magic number. > i have some ideas on this but nothing is very > concrete. > > can someone give me some feedback on this..if u feel > that this is not a > right question to be put in this forum i apologize > but i would like to take > this up with someone who is interested and i wouldnt > use this mailing list > for the same. > > thanks for ur time > sai > > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: > http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: DENNIS WILLIAMS > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 > http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web > hosting services > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an > E-Mail message > === message truncated === -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Sai Selvaganesan INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
