74878 16 0
0
> > >
> > > redo copy 114100 53756
232
> > >
> > > redo writing30219 1 0
0
> > >
> > > 3 rows selected.
> > >
> > > Realiz
redo allocation latch, I increased
> > the value of "log_small_entry_max_size" from 80 to 90.
> > But this would definitely overload (already suffering) redo copy
> > latches, so I increased the value of log_simultaneous_copies from 2 to
> > 6.
> >
" from 80 to 90.
> > > But this would definitely overload (already suffering) redo copy
> > > latches, so I increased the value of log_simultaneous_copies from 2 to
> > > 6.
> > > This sorted out redo latch contention, but somewhere in FM it
m a compulsive tuning
disorder ;-)
> 2. Why this parameter is missing from Oracle 8i?? Has Oracle
changed the
> algorithm?? What is the new strategy to handle redo latch
contention??
It is now an unsupported parameter in 8i, and it defaults to 2 times the
number o
ches, so I increased the value of log_simultaneous_copies from 2 to
6.
This sorted out redo latch contention, but somewhere in FM it's
mentioned that value of log_simultaneous_copies shouldn't be more than
(2 * #_of_CPUs). Again I know that the CPU is "not" heavily used so far.
So...
1
out redo latch contention, but somewhere in FM it's
> > mentioned that value of log_simultaneous_copies shouldn't be more than
> > (2 * #_of_CPUs). Again I know that the CPU is "not" heavily used so far.
> > So...
> >
> > 1. Is it OK to set log_si
ltiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Redo latch contention
>
> Hi All,
> I had some situation of Redo Allocation and copy latch
> contention as stated in following output.
>
> SQL> SELECT substr(NAME,1,18) NAME, GETS,MISSES,
creased
> the value of "log_small_entry_max_size" from 80 to 90.
> But this would definitely overload (already suffering) redo copy
> latches, so I increased the value of log_simultaneous_copies from 2 to
> 6.
> This sorted out redo latch contention, but somewhe
imultaneous_copies from 2 to
6.
This sorted out redo latch contention, but somewhere in FM it's
mentioned that value of log_simultaneous_copies shouldn't be more than
(2 * #_of_CPUs). Again I know that the CPU is "not" heavily used so far.
So...
1. Is it OK to set log_
