dbdao吧 关注:1,183贴子:4,074
  • 6回复贴,共1

Global Cache Transfer Times里的Immed时间为何比Busy时间长呢

只看楼主收藏回复

如下是从论坛上的下载的AWR报告,里面的Immed的时间为何会比busy时间长呢
Global Cache Transfer Times (ms)
Avg Time - average time of all blocks (Immed,Busy,Congst) in ms
Immed, Busy, Congst - Average times in ms
ordered by CR + Current Blocks Received desc
CR Avg Time (ms) Current Avg Time (ms)
Inst No Block Class All Immed Busy Congst All Immed Busy Congst
2 data block 4.52 4.39 7.17 0.73 1.34 1.32 9.94 1.59
2 others 14.45 14.52 8.08 0.62 1.08 1.07 3.43 1.67
2 undo header 0.64 0.59 4.53 0.51 0.74 0.57 5.47
2 undo block 27.79 28.20 1.46


1楼2015-10-20 17:18回复
    给出AWR


    2楼2015-10-20 22:46
    收起回复
      2026-01-08 15:09:22
      广告
      不感兴趣
      开通SVIP免广告
      Global Cache Transfer Stats DB/Inst: APPS/appsu02 Snaps: 1-2
      -> Immediate (Immed) - Block Transfer NOT impacted byRemote Processing Delays
      Busy (Busy) - BlockTransfer impacted by Remote Contention
      Congested (Congst) - Block Transfer impacted by Remote System Load
      -> ordered by CR + Current Blocks Receiveddesc


      3楼2015-10-20 22:49
      回复
        CR Current
        Inst No Block Class Blocks Received % Immed % Busy % Congst Blocks Received % Immed % Busy % Congst
        2 data block 44,224 95.02 4.81 0.17 1,911,657 99.63 0.13 0.23
        2 Others 1,082 99.08 0.83 0.09 4,442 99.53 0.18 0.29
        2 undo header 3,027 98.61 1.26 0.13 90 96.67 3.33 0.00
        2 undo block 328 98.48 1.52 0.00 0
        other class 的block receive 相比data block少得多, 这意味着其相关指标的典型意义被冲淡了


        4楼2015-10-21 13:33
        收起回复