Re: SGA_MAX_SIZE vs. SGA_TARGET
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 14:07:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE-dsOJ5+REkcEH0kFC=iiE+8u0rTN1BUMcHbnzUk=fGXFrE7w_at_mail.gmail.com>
Was really getting worried I was senile and was going to start drooling on myself. I knew I was able to get memory to allocate and deallocate in the past. It was on Solaris.
Does anyone know why this varies by unix/linux flavor? What is solaris doing that Linux does not?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Neil Chandler <neil_chandler_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> It depends upon your platform. Most platforms allocate max_size so having
> a lower sga_target is pointless and a waste of memory. Some platforms do
> not (Solaris), and only allocate sga_target, with max_size an unused top
> limit.
>
> Neil.
> sent from my phone
>
> > On 5 Sep 2015, at 18:51, Dba DBA <oracledbaquestions_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > yeah this is old. I know its on the web. However, the responses I see
> are not to the question I have.
> >
> > What is the point to having two parameters? If SGA_MAX_SIZE reserves
> memory for oracle as an upper bound, but would I want to be able to raise
> and lower SGA_TARGET? What do I do with the 'spare memory'.
> PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET is separate and not taken from memory reserved with
> SGA_MAX_SIZE
> >
> > db_cache,shared_pool, large_pool,streams, java, etc... all come out of
> SGA_TARGET. So what is the point to this? I am missing something.
> >
> > I have I have 20 GB SGA_MAX_SIZE and a 10 GB SGA_TARGET. What is oracle
> doing with the other 10 GB?
> >
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sat Sep 05 2015 - 20:07:53 CEST