RE: ORA-04031

From: Wolfson Larry - lwolfs <lawrence.wolfson_at_acxiom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:40:44 -0500
Message-ID: <433A07749711884D8032B6A0AB115262C2BC84@conmsx07.corp.acxiom.net>

Paula,

	Below are some comments from an earlier post on 4031.
	You may find that you don't really need the
shared_pool_reserved_size.
	Run the script below to see what kind of activity there really is
and decide if it's worth it.
	Could you let us know what you find and also what are your

shared_pool_reserved_size and shared_pool_size parameters.

Thanks

Larry

Kathy,

Ummmmmm, I think you missed my point. What I thought I said was we found the shared_pool_RESERVE wasn't getting used at all or hardly at all.

	So we changed it from the default to 1M.
	shared_pool_reserved_size            string  1024000
	shared_pool_size                     string  514400000

	I don't know how long your DB has been up but it looks like you had

85 failures and you still had 25M you never used.

The problem is Only allocations larger than SHARED_POOL_RESERVED_POOL_MIN_ALLOC can allocate space from the reserved list if a chunk of memory of sufficient size is not found on the shared pool's free lists.

Your query below says you had 25M free for something really big to stick in the SharedPoolReserve but 4132 was smaller then the SHARED_POOL_RESERVED_POOL_MIN_ALLOC so you got a 4031 when you had 25M free.

	I didn't say anything about changing the SHARED_POOL size.
	It looks like you found the problem with .net.
	
	What I'm suggesting is you have 25M you might want to put to better

use somewhere else.

Larry

>From Tom Kyte:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:773961292 7578
With 8.0, the large pool came along -- this obviated the need for the "reserved"
portion of the shared pool. We moved those big allocations from the shared pool
into the large pool. So, the reserved is not needed. For the same reason, pinning is pretty much "not needed" either. It makes some
people feel better but in 99.999% of the cases (eg: system is running normally,
you use bind variables) pinning is pretty much a waste of programming effort on
your part as well.
I would suggest not using either really. Ignore their existence.

Subject: RE: 4031 - errors

Kathy, hi how are you?

Got in here a couple days late but we had a sever problem with 4031s and after looking on metalink I used this script to see how busy the shared_pool_reserve was.

SPOOL $DBS/Sharedpoolreserved.$ORACLE_SID

COL name              FOR A05
COL REQUEST_FAILURES  FOR 999,999     HEA "REQUEST|FAILURES"

COL LAST_FAILURE_SIZE FOR 999,999,999 HEA "LAST |FAILURE |SIZE " select name

,free_space
,avg_free_size
,used_space
,avg_used_size
,request_failures
,last_failure_size
,TO_CHAR(SYSDATE,'DD-MON-YYYY HH24 MI SS') DATE_AN_TIME
from db

,v$shared_pool_reserved

;
SPOOL OFF name is just the our INTERNAL DB name like CHICago, JACKsonville, DALLas etc. to tell one PROD from another.

We had a lot of free space and minimized the SPR to give more memory to SP. We didn't have any more problems

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Paula_Stankus_at_doh.state.fl.us
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:28 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: ORA-04031

Platform:

Oracle 9.2.0.5
Solaris 2.9
ArcSDE 8.3

I am running a DSS - geodatabase with 30 concurrent users. I am getting = ORA-04031 errors.

I have verified that last_failure_size > shared_pool_reserved_min_alloc. = According to Note: 146599.1 it states that I should increase the = hidden parameter "_shared_pool_reserved_min_alloc" to lower the number = of objects being cached. =20

It is currently set at 4400 - how much lower would I need to go????

It also states I should consider increasing the = shared_pool_reserved_size and shared_pool_size but these parameters seem = adequate to me:

40M for shared_pool_size
4M for shared_pool_reserved_size

I have gone through NOTE: 1012046.6 "Calculating Shared Pool size" and = based on that my shared_pool_size is more than adequate.

How can I more specifically size the shared pool, shared reserved pool = as I know that if I size too large then I can start incurring overhead.

The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You.

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 Wed Jul 14 2004 - 12:25:34 CDT