dedicated server process memory usage ....
- From: "Pampati, Sree" <Sree.Pampati@xxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:42:17 -0400
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!
Other related posts:
