RE: Process and sessions overhead
- From: "CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)" <JC1706@xxxxxxx>
- To: "Greg Rahn" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:05:33 -0500
I have been asked this question many times, but perhaps if mention that the
server has 48 cpu and 256gb of memory, and 10 tb of disk, it might give you an
idea of the load that is expected.
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Rahn [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:03 PM
To: CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Process and sessions overhead
Because curiosity is killing me, what is the requirement to have 1000
sessions, let alone 2000? That just seems broken to me.
The reason I bring this up is because there isn't just potential
issues at the database level, most OS perform much worse with that
many processes. Think about the time sharing model when there are
2000 processes to schedule.
I believe that Andrew Holdsworth (my boss) is doing an
"over-processed" demo as part of the IOUG tour which is based off the
one he did for OOW10.
http://www.ioug.org/tabid/194/Default.aspx
Maybe someone on this list has attended one and can comment.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP) <JC1706@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> What is the memory overhead of increasing processes and sessions ? Say I
> current have 1000 sessions and I want to increase that to 2000 sessions: how
> much extra memory would I use assuming no additional processes sessions are
> really used ?
--
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
