E1 8.12 TR8.96 C1 HP9000 package build takes 18h???

Hi all,

anyone running E1 8.12 TR8.96 C1 on HP9000 Oracle? We just finished with the installation but the first package build took around 18h. Compared to our previous test installation on Intel Win2003 enterprise server which took ca. 6h it looks a bit toooo long.

Anyone out there using the same configuration (HP9000 enterprise, seperate DB server running on HP9000 and Oracle 10g R2?)

I would appreciate any performance tips....

cheers,

Adrian

Contrary to some marketing claims, E812 package builds can (and often will) take longer than pre-E812 package builds, because the specs are now read off the database _twice_ (plus need to be de-XML'ed and re-XML'ed again once) and it's always been the longest part of the entire process.

Plus, specifically for package builds, MS SQL will outperform 2-3 times any other type of DB - if your test system was running MS SQL (you only mentioned Wintel, but not the DB type), then your results are more or less consistent with what one would expect.

It's also very dependent on the performance characteristics of your various hardware components, which we know nothing about, so it's hard to say if it's really normal.

18h looks a bit too much, I'd normally expect to see something around 6-12 hours, so there's a chance you could improve it, unless these HP boxes are really undersized, which frequently happens when the sizing is exclusively done by only one party...

Hi Alex,

we used SQL on the WINTEL platform. Sizing was done by HP and Oracle together (of course not a guarantee....). The HP9000 server is running on two CPU's and as we put the Oracle DB on a separate HP9000 server it should have enough power. I just received a replay on my call with JDE and the recommend to upgrade to TR8.96 D1 (there are some fixes for the HP9000 platform).

I try this first and then we take it from there. Thanks for your response!

cheers,

Adrian

Adrian,

Interestingly, I thought TR896_D1 was slower than _C1 when I tested it, although this is purely subjective - I have not timed anything.

Anyway, CPU power is not everything. Your HP disks configuration will have the most impact, as will also have the deployment server performance.

I bet, they sold you a SAN? It's amazing how a simple marketing trick - saying "1Gb/s" can excite the potential buyers, who fail to realise that 1Gb/s (which equals to approx. 100 MB/s, note the "b/B" letter case difference) is 3.2 times slower than SCSI running at 320MB/s!

Plus, separating the DB from the Enterprise Server will generally make your system slower, not faster as some may believe.

Get a second opinion about your sizing. From someone who is not interested in selling you more HP boxes ;-)