You are very funny Mladen. I have never said in any post here, that I don’t
like you.
I just believe in facts.
The facts do not support your argument and the RedHat/Oracle documentation
doesn't either. The Oracle values that Oracle itself sets on Exadata, a fully
run and managed Oracle device, doesn’t support your argument.
Oracle Support has given a recommendation rather you like it or not.
The originally poster can decide to use those values or not to try and resolve
their issue.
There is nothing wrong with those values as Linux will accept them (will not
damage the system), then follow the rules embedded in the source code as to
what it determines or needs for the resource requirements on the system.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 1:11 PM
To: dimensional.dba@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: linux kernel parameters
Which ones? I have explained the semantics of the semaphore parameters.
Nobody questioned that semantics. The rest of my statements logically follows
that syntax. The statement that SEMMNS should be larger or equal, idally equal,
to SEMMSL*SEMMNI follows from that syntax. If SEMMNS < SEMMSL*SEMMNI then you
will not be able to allosace SEMMNI semaphore sets with the length of SEMMSL.
That is the reason for my objection to 3000 32000 3000 128 advice. That advice
was obviously given by a junior support analyst who doesn't understand
semaphores very well because that recommendation doesn't conform to the
semantics of the semaphore parameters.
This feels like whipping a dead horse. We're getting nowhere. I understand that
you don't like me, but the facts are the facts.
On 2/13/21 3:13 PM, dimensional.dba@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
It is not about being right, it is about being technically accurate.
You make statements with no facts.
