Re: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
- From: Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
It depends on how much memory you have spare to waste. See the blog entries...
________________________________
From: Howard Latham <howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx>
To: ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, July 23, 2010 11:30:01 AM
Subject: Re: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
Do we need huge pages with 64 bit Oracle?
On 23 July 2010 18:03, Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>does not have any performance conclusions
>
>It's a capacity issue more than a performance issue. However, if you run out
>of
>capacity your performance will be impacted. Don't confused Linux hugepages
>with
>most of the Unix derivations that implement huge pages with shared page
>tables.
>Shared page tables is a performance feature.
>
>http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/kevin-closson-index/2009/07/28/quantifying-hugepages-memory-savings-with-oracle-database-11g/
>
>
>BTW, 11gR1? Really?
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "Crisler, Jon" <Jon.Crisler@xxxxxxx>
>To: D'Hooge Freek <Freek.DHooge@xxxxxxxxx>; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 4:51:47 PM
>
>Subject: RE: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
>
>
>Thanks- I saw this blog, but he does not have any performance conclusions on
>hugepages vs. 11g AMM for larger systems. On smaller, 32 bit systems there
>was
>no clear winner.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: D'Hooge Freek [mailto:Freek.DHooge@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:11 PM
>To: Crisler, Jon; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
>
>Jon,
>
>Yes, you can still pick between AMM and "normal" memory parameters.
>For the comparison, I suggest you look at the following blogpost of Kevin
>Closson:
>http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2007/08/23/oracle11g-automatic-memory-management-and-linux-hugepages-support/
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Freek D'Hooge
>Uptime
>Oracle Database Administrator
>email: freek.dhooge@xxxxxxxxx
>tel +32(0)3 451 23 82
>http://www.uptime.be
>disclaimer: www.uptime.be/disclaimer
>________________________________________
>From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Crisler, Jon
>Sent: woensdag 21 juli 2010 18:03
>To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
>
>And a follow up question- if I implement a large /tmpfs - shm, I can still use
>choose to not use AMM and use hugepages, correct ?
>
>From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Crisler, Jon
>Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:57 AM
>To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: 11g AMM tmpfs vs hugepages for best overall performance
>
>Which is better for performance on large Red Hat 5 systems (64gb+ memory, 8+
>cpu's) - using 10g style shm settings and hugepages, OR the newer 11g
>Automatic
>Memory Manager (which does not support hugepages).
>
>The system I am building is a 6 node 11g R1 RAC, memory somewhere between 64gb
>and 256gb (not sure yet), 8 cpu per node. This machine will support a huge
>workload.
>--
>//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
--
Howard A. Latham
Sent from my Nokia N97
Other related posts:
