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 reaches around 1.4G, our application runs into "Listener unable to start a dedicated server process" At this point no one will be able to connect to the db and we are forced to restart.

We are exploring to migrate the db on to Win 2003.

Murali.

|---------+---------------------------->


|         |           "Boivin, Patrice |

|         |           J"               |

|         |           <BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-|

|         |           mpo.gc.ca>       |

|         |           Sent by:         |

|         |           ml-errors_at_fatcity|

|         |           .com             |

|         |                            |

|         |                            |

|         |           12/16/2003 03:44 |

|         |           PM               |

|         |           Please respond to|

|         |           ORACLE-L         |

|         |                            |

|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>                                  |
  |       cc:                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  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 processes.

Patrice.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Yechiel Adar [mailto:adar76_at_inter.net.il]
      Sent: December 11, 2003 10:40 AM
      To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
      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 Message -----
       From: Paul Drake
       To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
       Sent: 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, as W2K thinks it a
       fileserver (and domain controller, web server, print server, etc)
       until you tell it otherwise.

       This is much improved in w2k3 server - where you tell it what you
       want it to be.

       A good sysadmin would have set the OS to "optimize throughput for
       network applications" which would have turned off the filesystem
       caching. Ok, its only one radio button to select, so an MSCE could
       set it also.

       Surprisingly enough, in W2K Server - changing this setting does not
       require a reboot, although I don't know if the changes take effect
       until after a system restart. That's not the sort of thing that I
       usually test, as NT4 had me trained to reboot afterwards.

       the other thing may be, that the boot.ini no longer supports the
       /3GB or /PAE switches as Jared mentioned - but that should not cause
       the symptoms you are reporting.

       hth.

       Paul

       Mark Leith <mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk> wrote:
        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 physical
        memory, they
        also increased their SGA size & db_block_buffers.

        Since they've upgraded they have noticed a significant decrease in
        performance (the way it was described to me was "it was 7 out of
        10, and is
        now 3 out of 10"..).

        Has anybody else done a system upgrade of this nature that has
        caused less
        than desirable effects? Any pointers as to what to look at? We've
        requested
        some stats (top wait stats etc.) and I'll feed these back as and
        when I get
        them - but I thought I'd throw this out to you guys in the vague
        hope thatsomeone has experienced some relatively similar
        experiences.

        Cheers!

        Mark

        ===================================================
        Mark Leith | T: +44 (0)1905 330 281
        Sales & Marketing | F: +44 (0)870 127 5283
        Cool Tools UK Ltd | E: mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk
        ===================================================
        http://www.cool-tools.co.uk
        Maximising throughput & performance
        ---
        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/2003

        --
        Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
        --
        Author: Mark Leith
        INET: mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk

        Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
        San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------

        To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Ma! il message
        to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
        the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
        (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
        also send the HELP command for other information (like
        subscribing).


       Do you Yahoo!?
       New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: 
  INET: Murali_Pavuloori/Claritas_at_claritas.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).