Re: dedicated server process memory usage ....

From: <jo_holvoet_at_amis.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:13:59 +0200
Message-id: <OFD599C042.DC27704A-ONC1256EAD.002791DC@eu.amis.com>

On Solaris, take a look at "pmap -x <pid>". This will tell you which parts of the memory reported to the process are shared or private.

mvg/regards

"Pampati, Sree" <Sree.Pampati_at_FMR.COM>
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
06/07/2004 15:42
Please respond to oracle-l

        To:     oracle-l_at_freelists.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        dedicated server process memory usage ....

Hi,

How is memory allocated to a dedicated server process ? I just opened a sqlplus connection ( no SQL fired!), did ps -elf | grep <pid> on the server pid, which showed sz: 592M, RSS: 558. There are about 800 server processes running at that time ( the box has 10G physical mem, of which about 2GB was free at that time. Solaris 8 . Oracle version :9.2.0.4 ).

*_area_size parameters in init.ora are : bitmap_merge_area_size = 1048576

(1MB)
create_bitmap_area_size= 8388608 (8MB)

                                                            hash_area_size 
              = 4194304     (4MB)
                                                            sort_area_size 
               = 2097152     (2MB)

Oracle 10gAS and 9iAS too are running on the box in addition to the oracle instance.

Is this a good candidate for MTS ? Do I get substantial benefit using pga_target_aggregate features of 9i ?

I would very sincerely appreciate your valuable feed back ( any pointers to docs/info are highly appreciated).

Thanks,
Sree Pampati
-----Original Message-----

From: Darrell Landrum [mailto:darrell_at_landrum.com] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:58 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Hardware Question

Hey Jay,

I hate when management comes to me with questions like you mention about this new hardware handling the workload. But, I have a response now that I love because it can be confusing to them.
I simply ask, "Why?".
Why are they looking at new hardware? Does the current hardware not handle the workload? Is there a forthcoming app server/database upgrade that will require more resources? Are they scaling out their current utilization, perhaps to more users? Are they adding more databases? I know this may not seem like the best attitude and trust me, I love newer, faster hardware more than most, but really the justification for new hardware should come before the shopping for hardware. In my role as a DBA, I should be the one (or, of course, the sys admins) that recognizes the need for hardware upgrades and hopefully before management starts to feel the need. If I can't quantify the need for new servers or additional hardware (or software for that matter), I actually speak against it. This way, when I tell them we need something, they listen! Just one guy's 2 cents.
However, you mention a bottleneck on the SAN controllers. That is a big red flag. There's always a chance (and some would argue a very good chance) that faster processors and more memory will make this SAN controller bottleneck worse or at least more noticeable. Hopefully, additional channels to the SAN are being considered with this new box as well.

Good luck!

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tue Jun 08 2004 - 02:11:01 CDT