Poor performance after Sol2.6 To Sol8 migration

From: DAUBIGNE Sebastien - BOR (SDaubigne_at_bordeaux-bersol.sema.slb.com)
Date: 12/22/03

  • Next message: Geoff Lane: "SUMMARY: Sol8 / netraX1 / packet loss" 
    Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:56:37 +0100
To: sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org

    Hi,

    We recently upgraded our E6500 (18 CPU, 25 Gb) from Solaris 2.6 (32 bits) to
    Solaris 8 (64 bits).
    This was not really an upgrade : we just reinstalled Solaris 8 and all other
    products (VxVM, VxFS, etc.) on a separate disk set using a spare E450, and
    ufsrestored + rebooted it on the E6500, just importing the data.

    We though, according to Sun claims
    (http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/programs/upgradingtosolaris8.html
    <http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/programs/upgradingtosolaris8.html> ),
    that we would get a performance boost.

    Unfortunately, our applications are performing worse than with Solaris 2.6 :

    - Oracle (8.1.7.4, 32-bits) took a 30% decrease in performance,
    although we didn't change anything in the Oracle config/data. We tried to
    run 64-bits Oracle but it was even worse (-50%), although we increased the
    Oracle buffers (SGA).
    - Batch jobs (COBOL programs and a sort tool called "Syncsort")
    perform slightly worse (-10%).

    I can't see any obvious bottleneck using the standard tools (iostat, vmstat,
    iostat) : CPU usage didn't increase, no paging to swap, I/O services times
    are quite similar with 2.6 figures.
    We left the kernel parameters at their 2.6 values, except for some
    parameters that became obsolete with Sol8 (priority_paging, some IPCs...).
    Here are some of the values (I removed IPCs and device-specifics) :

    set fastscan=131072
    set handspreadpages=131072
    set maxpgio=65536
    set maxphys=1048576
    set vxio:vol_maxio=2048

    Is there any tuning parameter or anything else I could have miss, which are
    recommended when upgrading from Sol2.6 to Sol8 ?

    Do you think that running the 64-bits kernel with an E6500 is a bad idea
    (though it is the default) ? Should we consider running the 32-bits kernel ?

    Thanks for your help. 

    ---
Sebastien DAUBIGNE 
sdaubigne@bordeaux-bersol.sema.slb.com
<mailto:sdaubigne@bordeaux-bersol.sema.slb.com>  - (+33)5.57.26.56.36
SchlumbergerSema - SGS/DWH/Pessac
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
  • Next message: Geoff Lane: "SUMMARY: Sol8 / netraX1 / packet loss"

    Relevant Pages