:
RE: NT - Win2K causes performance degradation..
I'll
throw gasoline on the fire here...
On
Win2K you may hit resource limits when you get to 1.5G or so memory used on a
4G server...
Because Windows allocates half the memory to the kernel processes, half
to the user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
Subject:RE: NT - Win2K causes
performance degradation..We run oracle 9.2.0.3 on Win 2000 and have
observed that whenever thememory on ora.exe process reaches around 1.4G,
our application runs into"Listener unable to start a dedi
Interesting.
We noticed the same thing on Windows2000, it doesn't get mentioned often.
Does it mean not many people maintain databases that require more than 1.5G
of memory on their Windows servers?
My impression so far:
- one can't use virtual memory on the Windows platform for a busy database,
-From: Yechiel Adar
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 11, 2003 10:40
AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re:
NT - Win2K causes performance degradation..
The /3GB does not work for the simple reason that in W2K
you have 3GB as max address space. At least that what my
Subject: Re: NT - Win2K causes performance degradation..
The /3GB does not work for the simple reason that in W2K you have 3GB
as max address space. At least that what my sysadmin tells me (after
checking with MS).
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original
Or just move to advanced server.
Murali_Pavuloori/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12/16/2003 02:04 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: NT - Win2K causes performance degradation
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: NT - Win2K causes
performance degradation..
We run oracle 9.2.0.3 on Win 2000 and have observed
that whenever the
memory on ora.exe process
: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:49
PM
Subject: Re: NT - Win2K causes
performance degradation..
Mark,
My guess is, that the new OS re-instated the file system caching.
By default, 41% (yes, it should have been 42%) of physical memory will be
allocated to filesystem caching
Hi all,
Thanks for the pointers that you have all supplied. Sage advice that they
shouldn't have changed Oracle whilst changing their OS at the same time.
I also did some checking up on the /3GB switch before it was mentioned
(having seen it on here in the past) - Windows 2000 does in fact
Mark,
MS w2k3 server supports large memory in the standard product, advanced edition not required.For me,those (client) systems are still in acceptance testing, and I have not yet actually run them with a process memory 2 GB. I'll let you know after I do, sounds like a good test for a rainy
Hi All,
We've been asked a question from one of our clients that I'm a little
stumped on.
They run an OLTP database (Oracle 8.1.7), and have recently upgraded their
NT machine to Windows 2000, they were running with 2gb of memory, and
upgraded that to 4gb in the process. As they increased
Hi Mark,
no thoughts specific to Oracle, but I'd recommend using the principle of change only
one element at a time. I'd say they were unwise to upgrade to W2K, and at the same
time change their Oracle parameters. If possible, I'd advise they set all their Oracle
parameters back to their
Mark,
I have not done a MicroSlop upgrade, but I have in the past upped the SGA size
and gotten when I really did not want, which was database performance degradation.
You might ask them to check the pagefile size. If it's system maintained or too small
funny things do happen. BTW:
Mark,
This is pure speculation, as you didn't provide any particulars.
Upgrading to Win2k is not likely the culprit, or at least, I have
experienced any kind of problem in moving a database from NT - Win2k.
When they upgraded the memory, by just now much did they increase
db_block_buffers?
If
Might also be they bumped shared_pool way up and they aren't using bind
variables?
-Original Message-
When they upgraded the memory, by just now much did they increase
db_block_buffers?
If increased too much, they could be spending a lot of time
waiting on latches, as there may
Mark,
My guess is, that the new OS re-instated the file system caching.
By default, 41% (yes, it should have been 42%) of physical memory will be allocated to filesystem caching, as W2K thinks it a fileserver(and domain controller, web server, print server, etc) until you tell it otherwise.
This
16 matches
Mail list logo
