Re: Metalink Note 330239.1
- From: Remigiusz Soko?owski <rems@xxxxxxxx>
- To: sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:37:39 +0100
Charles Schultz wrote:
I would also like to hear more about this. Although, I do not believe
the information message indicates any kind of shortage or
fragmentation - I get the impression that it boils down to "Hey, dude,
someone just loaded a really large object into memory." Period. I find
the metalink note to be a bit ambiguous; it talks about "spending a
lot of time in finding free memory extents during an allocate", but
the parameter itself is in units of bytes, not seconds.
We have resorted to setting this parameter "reasonably high" (what
does that mean, anyway?). From my experience, you can get this message
even if/when your sga is not fragmented, so it is not really an
indication of anything noteworthy. Of course, I could be completely
misguided, but until someone tells me so, I will just go my merry way. =)
On 1/11/07, *Niall Litchfield* <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I'm being a bear of very little brain here. I'm reading the note
above since we are seeing KGL Heap Notifications on a production
10.2 system. I'm confused as to whether this is telling me that I
should resize the shared pool, because the shared pool is either
fragmented or short of space, or if it is just telling me about
large objects being loaded into the shared pool and I should reset
the warning level to something higher(or turn it off).
I reckon I'm using 212 of the 304mb shared pool size that this db
has and so am tending towards the latter theory, but any insight
into this behaviour in 10.2 would be welcomed.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info
--
Charles Schultz
we have had much to do with this issue (SR 5785397.993) and now I
suppose that it is more than only warning issue.
We had serious problem with db and our supposition was that it is bound
with running MMON. The solution to it (by Oracle Support) was to
increase _kgl_large_heap_warning_threshold to 50M. For me that is quite
strange but there was no more problems.
On the other occasion colleague of mine set this parameter to 128M -
server didn't start throwing some err message. Then he thought that may
be this parameter causes some piece of memory to be allocated. However
when we tried to reproduce it all went OK.
By and large very strange parameter for me ;-)
Remigiusz
--
---------------------------------------
Remigiusz Sokolowski <rems@xxxxxxxx>
WP/PTI/DIP/ZAB (+04858) 52 15 770
MySQL v. 4.x
Oracle v. 10.x
---------------------------------------
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
