:
Paul
Drake
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:34
PM
Subject: Re: How windows manage memory:
oracle
Hi.
The 2 GB process limit kicks in well under 2 * 1024 *1024 * 1024.
its between 1.7 and 1.8 GB.
I'm quite familiar
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Yechiel AdarSent: 05 December 2003 07:24To: Multiple
recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re: How windows manage memory:
oracle
Thanks Paul.
I did a check this week with out Win2000 tech support
and was told that it come with 3GB process size while WNT was limited
My favorite SF computer is Holly, from the Red Dwarf. Add a
hologram like Rimmer and who needs anything else? I believe
that Holly was running MS-Windows.
On 12/04/2003 04:44:26 PM, Bellow, Bambi wrote:
I know I've posted this before, but it's been many years, so here we go
again.
NT was
Hi, friends:
Several months ago there is a thread talking about choosing the proper memory size
for windows server running oracle.
And today I logon to one of my small oracle on NT and found something I cannot
understand. It is a small application running Oracle 817/win2k.
SGA is
Hi,
But PGA is only 40M(This is the sum of all process's v$sesstat).
So there is more memory utilization then oracle actually should use.
From task manager, it is 2018(Physical+Virtual), But from oracle v$(sga + pga) it
is only 1020M.This is the problem.
Zhu Chao.
- Original
Hi.
The 2 GB process limit kicks in well under 2 * 1024 *1024 * 1024.
its between 1.7 and 1.8 GB.
I'm quite familiar with hitting it in win32, as large memory support was not enabled in every 8.1.7.x patchset. Large memory support sure works great in 9.2.0.4.
W2K3 Server (not Advanced) ships
SGA is 970M and PGA(maxsize) is 40M. Connection is 20.But from task
manager, Oracle is using 1005M physical Memory and 1013M virtual memory(you
can view the data from here:
http://www.cnoug.org/html/ut/attach/2003/12/04/12516-oramem2-embed.gif).
Physical memory and virtual memory overlap in
That is utterly disgusting memory management. When I come to think
of it, there was a guy named David Cutler who was promising that Windows
will have the same virtual memory system as VMS, with FREELIM,FREEGOAL,
BORROWLIM, GROWLIM and MPW_ parameters. Working sets are also gone as
well as the most
Even though I have never touched VMS myself, I completely agree that it is
(was) a great operating system, I've just heard so many good words from
respectable sources about it :)
About Windows, probably the initial idea was great but since MS is a
marketing driven company, they just left off most
I know I've posted this before, but it's been many years, so here we go
again.
NT was supposed to be Windows' answer to VMS. WNT, doesn't stand for
anything, so how did they come up with the name?
V+1=W
M+1=N
S+1=T
Just like
I-1=H
B-1=A
M-1=L
Coincidence?
Bambi.
-Original Message-
10 matches
Mail list logo
