Re: dedicated server process memory usage ....
- From: jo_holvoet@xxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:13:59 +0200
On Solaris, take a look at "pmap -x <pid>". This will tell you which parts
of the memory reported to the process are shared or private.
mvg/regards
Jo
"Pampati, Sree" <Sree.Pampati@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/07/2004 15:42
Please respond to oracle-l
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject: dedicated server process memory usage ....
Hi,
How is memory allocated to a dedicated server process ? I just opened a
sqlplus connection ( no SQL fired!), did ps -elf | grep <pid> on the
server pid, which showed sz: 592M, RSS: 558. There are about 800
server processes running at that time ( the box has 10G physical mem, of
which about 2GB was free at that time. Solaris 8 . Oracle version
:9.2.0.4 ).
*_area_size parameters in init.ora are : bitmap_merge_area_size = 1048576
(1MB)
create_bitmap_area_size= 8388608 (8MB)
hash_area_size
= 4194304 (4MB)
sort_area_size
= 2097152 (2MB)
Oracle 10gAS and 9iAS too are running on the box in addition to the oracle
instance.
Is this a good candidate for MTS ? Do I get substantial benefit using
pga_target_aggregate features of 9i ?
I would very sincerely appreciate your valuable feed back ( any pointers
to docs/info are highly appreciated).
Thanks,
Sree Pampati
-----Original Message-----
From: Darrell Landrum [mailto:darrell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:58 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hardware Question
Hey Jay,
I hate when management comes to me with questions like you mention about
this new hardware handling the workload.
But, I have a response now that I love because it can be confusing to
them.
I simply ask, "Why?".
Why are they looking at new hardware? Does the current hardware not
handle the workload? Is there a forthcoming app server/database upgrade
that will require more resources? Are they scaling out their current
utilization, perhaps to more users? Are they adding more databases? I
know this may not seem like the best attitude and trust me, I love newer,
faster hardware more than most, but really the justification for new
hardware should come before the shopping for hardware. In my role as a
DBA, I should be the one (or, of course, the sys admins) that recognizes
the need for hardware upgrades and hopefully before management starts to
feel the need. If I can't quantify the need for new servers or additional
hardware (or software for that matter), I actually speak against it. This
way, when I tell them we need something, they listen!
Just one guy's 2 cents.
However, you mention a bottleneck on the SAN controllers. That is a big
red flag. There's always a chance (and some would argue a very good
chance) that faster processors and more memory will make this SAN
controller bottleneck worse or at least more noticeable. Hopefully,
additional channels to the SAN are being considered with this new box as
well.
Good luck!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
