RE: dedicated server process memory usage ....
- From: "Juan Miranda" <j.miranda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:05:31 +0200
Oracle processes use shared memory.
These values you see in ps are part of these memory.
Look for this Doc. Id in Metalink:
Note: 17094.1
Unix virtual memory explained.
Paragraph IV: Monitoring mem usage
Juan Miranda
Dept. Consultoría y Desarrollo
SERMATICA
981 78 35 11 - 677 51 84 50
_____
De: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Pampati, Sree
Enviado el: lunes, 07 de junio de 2004 15:42
Para: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: 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!
Other related posts:
