Message from discussion Cache Hit Ratio from system views
From: "Bob Jones" <em...@me.not>
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <sEPui.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Cache Hit Ratio from system views
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.net 1186797839 ST000 18.104.22.168 (Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:03:59 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:03:59 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:03:59 GMT
>>>>Alone, yea, but they can sometimes be an indicator that an instance
>>> Do you really think so? Yesterday I had a customer spouting flames
>>> because of a RAC database coming down to a crawl due to buffer busy
>>> waits in conjunction with both instances updating the same table over
>>> and over again.
>>> Nothing to be seen from the BCHR.
>>> But then of course BCHR is a MIPS (Meaningless Indicator of the
>>> Performance of the System).
>>> Savy professionals (a favorite phrase of Don) know better.
>>That is a common mistake of "savy professionals" - overlooking the basics
>>and thinking they know better.
> Assuming you are such a 'savy professional' 'Mr' Jones, why didn't you
> notice throwing memory at the problem doesn't help?
It can help sometimes. But what does that have to do with anything?
> On another note: If you think *you* know better, why don't you
> contribute a *working* example of the Burleson strategy?
Did I say anything about his strategy? Yet another assumption.
> You have a track record of lurking and only chiming in when you can
> flame someone with the drivel like you posted above.
I clearly disagree with the statement that BHCR is meaningless. This has
been discussed several times before. I won't waste any more energy.
> I recall your flame wars with Daniel Morgan, which only served to
> establish *you* are NOT a 'savy professional' but just some *arrogant
> idiot* (of which we have already way too many here).
What did we discuss? Was I wrong? I have no interest in becoming what you
call a "savy professional", because that really amount to exactly, an