User login
|
|
Frontpage Sponsor
|
|
Poll
|
How big is your Baan-DB (just Data AND Indexes) 0 - 200 GB 16% 200 - 500 GB 28% 500 - 800 GB 2% 800 - 1200 GB 9% 1200 - 1500 GB 9% 1500 - 2000 GB 14% > 2000 GB 21% Total votes: 43 |
Baanboard at LinkedIn
|

|
|
|
 |

28th January 2002, 18:25
|
Newbie
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2
|
|
Baan Oracle* Driver Performance Problems
Hi,
Upgraded database from 7.3.4 to 8.1.7.1 and didn't seem to observe any performance problems.(The Baan4c binaries reside on an NFS server mounted across to 5
Application servers).
The Baan Oracle8 driver was then utilised and performance took a nose dive (from the users perspective, as the database wasn't overworked nor are the servers).
From trussing the Baan Oracle8 driver process we could see it constantly accessing the oraus.msb message file. This behaviour is described in the Oracle bug
2142623 but I don't believe we are hitting this bug (neither do Oracle Support) as we cannot reproduce in other Application environments nor even reproduce as per
the bug report analysis.
I believe the Baan Oracle8 driver is some how mimicking the same behaviour as the bug.
Reverting back to the Baan Oracle7 driver resolved the constant oraus.msb file access but Baan do not support this configuration with an Oracle8 database.
The question is...........
Has anybody upgrading to the Baan Oracle8 driver (utilsing Oracle 8.1.7) and had performance problems our even a success.
If you have implemented this type of upgrade then could you please inform me of the exact version of Baan, porting set utilised etc.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks
Pete.
|

28th January 2002, 18:47
|
 |
Board Master
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,164
|
|
Baan: n/a -
DB: n/a -
OS: AIX, HP-UX, Linux
|
upgrades
Hi Pete,
We have done several with following versions:
- Baan: Baan4c4 (6.1c.05.02), BaanERP 5.0b; portingset (6.2a.03.01)
- Oracle 7.3.4 -> 8.0.6; 8.0.6 -> 8.1.7
Obviously the most important upgrade was from 7.3.4 -> 8.0.6. We did have performance problems but for reasons not related to Baan or Oracle.
I cannot say I have heard about the Oracle bug you are mentioning, that is new to me. I think overall the upgrade(s) can be looked upon as a success.
__________________
Regards,
Patrick Van der Veken - Admin & Founder - (c) 2001-2018 baanboard.com/baanforums.com
|

1st February 2002, 01:15
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heist-op-den-Berg (BE)
Posts: 118
|
|
Baan: Baan IV c4 -
DB: Oracle 9.2 -
OS: HP-UX 11.11
|
Did you ever go from 7.3.4 to 8.1.7 directly ?
(I need to do this later this year after we have upgraded from B40c3 to c4)
|

1st February 2002, 01:51
|
 |
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 3,081
|
|
Baan: Baan 4-5,5.2(Reger),LN-6.1,Infor LN-10.x -
DB: Oracle,MS-SQL -
OS: HPUX, Linux, Windows
|
We are still resolving performance issues with Oracle-8.1.7.2
|

1st February 2002, 10:17
|
Newbie
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2
|
|
All,
We've down graded the Baan Oracle Driver to version 7 from version 8 and performance has increased to an 'acceptable level'. Implementing the Baan Oracle8 Driver, with the latest Baan porting set, still caused the oraus.msg file to be accessed frequently and Baan are 'almost' admitting that they have a coding issue with their driver and are looking at this.
We still don't feel the response time is as good as at Oracle version 7 but I suspect we have a configuration/compatibility issue with our enviroment as we had to upgrade the OS for Oracle 8 but it's not consistent as we now have the following.........
NFS server (mounted to the APS servers) - Solaris 2.5.1
APS servers - Solaris 8
Database server - Solaris 2.6
One thing we did notice after some of the upgrades was that a 'Baan Reorg' of the Item master table did improve certain areas but why a Baan reorg of this table improved performance and not an Oracle reorg is still a mystery.
So the fight goes on...........
Pete.
|

1st February 2002, 16:48
|
 |
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portugal
Posts: 776
|
|
Baan: none (B40c4 was last) -
DB: Oracle -
OS: Linux (RHEL)
|
Baan tables and performance
Quote:
One thing we did notice after some of the upgrades was that a 'Baan Reorg' of the Item master table did improve certain areas but why a Baan reorg of this table improved performance and not an Oracle reorg is still a mystery.
|
On one system when we where deting a user (from Baan), the process would take more than 1 hour to do so (600 users in ttaad200, 400.000+ records on ttaad231).
When doing a global change, I dumped the table ttaad231 and noticed duplicate entries there - removed the duplicates, re-imported the table with deletion of current, puf, deletions in 5 to 10 seconds!
|

11th February 2002, 09:30
|
 |
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 668
|
|
Baan: Ivc4 -
DB: Oracle8i/9i/10g -
OS: HP-Ux11i
|
We did several migrations from Oracle 7.3.4 to 8.1.7, both directly and via 8.0.6.
Actually we did not encounter any major problems of performance degrations.
For oracle8.0.6 or 8.1.7 I recomamnd the protingset 6.1c.06.02, for Baan IVc4 that is. I can not give any experience with Baan ERP.
I have a bit the feeling, you have a platform issue here, most likely with Baan on Solaris. We are using HP-Ux 11.
The bug you are mentioning is also completely new to me. Is this Bug Solaris specific?
Markus
|

25th February 2004, 16:27
|
 |
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 585
|
|
Baan: Triton 3.0 and higher -
DB: All -
OS: All
|
A solution you can build yourself
The calling of the oraus.msb file is still a performance problem. Some people created a solution for it. Hope this also helps in your situation:
Oraus.msb solution
Kind regards,
Dick
__________________
BTW: this post has been made on my personal view. My employer might not share my point of view.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|