I decreased hash_area_size ,
I setted large_pool_size .
I decreased dispatcher number to 4.
And everything is well now.
Bunyamin
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:18 PM
How did you solved it?
Yechiel Adar
How did you solved it?
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:03 PM
FINALLY ,
Everything is good now.
Thank you for your replies.
Bunyamin
- Original Message -
To: Multiple
FINALLY ,
Everything is good now.
Thank you for your replies.
Bunyamin
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 12:33 AM
I suspect that if you are getting 4030s with 50 concurrent users that
you will get NO
mts_max_servers=750
mts_min_servers=100
dispatchers=50
users total 750
users concurrent at most 50
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:58 PM
Bunyamin,
What is MTS_MAX_SERVERS MTS_MIN_SERVERS set to?
Bunyamin,
You probably only need about 2 dispatchers. I think Oracle suggest 1
dispatcher for every 1000 users but that figure seems a little low to me,
I'd work on the basis of 1 dispatcher for every 500.
As for shared servers, work on the basis of 1 for every 10 users.
Try this
I agree with you but that will not help me in performance ...
Bunyamin
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:28 PM
Bunyamin,
You probably only need about 2 dispatchers. I think Oracle suggest 1
dispatcher for
You really don't need MTS with no more than 50 concurrent users unless you are running
into ora-4030s or other memory problems.
When you say performance is a problem, have you check OS swapping of memory to disk?
Your SGA might be too big (with AS and the 3GB switch no bigger than 3GIG,
Hello Bunyamin
I seem to miss something here.
If you have up to 50 concurrent users why do you use min_servers =100?
I think that you waste a lot of storage this way
and this can cause the computer to page a lot.
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list
Well yes it will as you will not have the overhead of managing all of those
unnecessary processes. However, as Michael Sale has correctly pointed out,
you don't need MTS for 50 connections.
-Original Message-
Sent: 27 June 2002 12:38
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I agree
Michael ,
I have tried all of them , but still performance is very bad. When switch to
dedicated mode I get ora:04030..
Have you ever switched to MTS and seen the same performance , I wonder if
you are sure about MTS performance is good.
What ever I did did not give the same performance as
What you get when you read messages in reverse chronological order!! OK, if
you've got memory problems, start with trying to address those first. Can you
decrease the size of the SGA? Cut the DB_BLOCK_BUFFERS back by a third is
possible, limit the shared_pool if you can,and get more memory
So far, I did not see what is the specific performance problem here.
I support one of the five warehouses that has over 300 users and we
implemented dedicated servers but we ended up with heavy disk swap because
application had external call procedure which gets Unix timestamp from
Oracle.
= c.dispatcher
and ss.paddr = c.server
/
--
From: Bunyamin Karadeniz[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:33 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Re: Re:MTS performance is too bad.
Michael
13 matches
Mail list logo
