Re: Negative ramifications of setting CPU_COUNT lower?
- From: Charles Schultz <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:37:51 -0600
Allow me to pose the looming question, "When will 11.2 be released for
Solaris?". I already know the official answer is "soon". Perhaps it would be
more educational to ask "what needs to be accomplished before 11.2 is
released for Solaris?"
Thanks for the response about cpu_count, Greg.
Brandon, yes, I hear you. =) I know.....
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:33, Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reducing the cpu_count is fine and at least I advise people to set it
> on the CMT boxes to the core, not the thread count if it is the only
> DB on the box. Since you have 55 then it should be fine to reduce it
> even further.
>
> When 11.2 is released for Solaris you can use cpu_count with resource
> manger to do instance caging as well.
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Charles Schultz <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Good day,
> > We recently moved 55 databases from a Sun F15K to a Sun T5440. You can
> > imagine what happened next. =)
> > Reading Glenn Fawcett's blog, we indeed see that CPU_COUNT = 256. I have
> > filed an SR with Oracle, but as I wait I am curious if those of you in
> the
> > know could tell me what are the negative ramifications of resetting
> > CPU_COUNT. If we go forward with this action, I want to do so in an
> informed
> > manner, and not simply shooting in the dark.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Charles Schultz
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Greg Rahn
> http://structureddata.org
>
--
Charles Schultz
Other related posts:
