Re: Oracle8i MTS on NT - any experience?

Thanks for this input Robert. Although you are not running on NT I'm encouraged by the fact that you are running 1200 users in 1.9 GB. We have a couple of Oracle consultants in helping the DBA define the necessary on a backup box to test.

I thought we would need a bigger Large Pool than you have indicated. An Oracle guy tuned the per user memory requirement and I think he is playing very safe at 5 MB per user. We plan to run a 10 to 1 ratio of connections to shared servers so we should easily get the whole lot within the 3 GB available. We will be running dedicated servers for batch stuff handled by Concurrent Manager.

Best regards...Paul

Robert Fazio <rfazio_at_home.com.nospam> wrote in message news:3sB37.1163$p7.507300_at_news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
>
> If you are considering MTS you will want to define a large pool, in
 addition
> to the shared pool. This is where the MTS memory will go if one is
 defined.
>
> The amount per session memory is based upon the application, not any fixed
> number. I don't have it in front of me, but I think it is just a sum of
 the
> uga of all sessions/num of sessions will give you a good starting point.
>
> I have 1200 connections to a 14G 14CPU sun box. My total shared pool is
> around 1.9G
>
> 375M to shared pool, 768M to large pool, and the rest (65,000 buffers) to
> the db_block_buffers
> I could easily reduce my shared pool down to 250M, now my large_pool sits
> around 500M used. Most connections us a very little bit, but about a
 third
> of them use 2-10M of memory. Others can grow, so I have a lot of
 breathing
> room. Most of that memory is due to PL/SQL table's that are used
> constantly.
>
> --
> Robert Fazio
> Senior Technical Analyst
> dbabob_at_yahoo.com
>
> "Alex Filonov" <afilonov_at_pro-ns.net> wrote in message
> news:3B4E615F.1BBC4EBB_at_pro-ns.net...
> > Paul Offord wrote:
> >
> > > Just for background - the database server is an IBM NetFinity with 8
> > > processors and 4GB of RAM. We are running the NT 4GT option to give
 us
 3GB
> > > of application memory. At 100 users (around 250 connections) the
 processors
> > > are busy but not stressed. Total memory in use by the Oracle process
 hovers
> > > around the 2GB mark on PerfMon.
> > >
> > > Best regards...Paul
> > >
> > > Paul Offord <paul.offord_at_btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9iifsa$4nv$1_at_plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > > > I am currently helping a customer to troubleshoot some Oracle
 Financials
> > > > post-installation problems. At the core of the system they have an
 Oracle8i
> > > > database running on an NT4 server. Oracle financials seems to
 require
 2
 or
> > > > sometimes 3 database connections per server. The system needs to
 support
> > > > 400 users and so we are expecting 1,000 connections to the database
 server.
> > > > Oracle consultants have been on site and tuned the per connection
 memory
> > > > requirement down to 5 MB. However, that would still require 5GB -
 beyond
> > > > the capabilities of NT.
> > > >
> > > > We are looking at implementing Multi-Threaded Server to bring the
 memory
> > > > demands within the capabilities of the NT platform. Oracle UK's
 experience
> > > > of an NT site of this size seems limited.
> > > >
> > > > * What experience do you have of MTS on NT?
> > > >
> > > > * Do you run an Oracle8i server on NT with a similar number of
 users?
> > > >
> > > > Any experiences, war stories, dos/don'ts would be much appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Tnaks in advance...Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > How big is your SGA right now? To use MTS, you'll have to increase SGA
> > significantly, at least by 1m per user session. For 400 connected users
 you are
> > going to need 400M extra in shared_pool_size. Can you do it? Max SGA
 should be
> > about 2G in your case, don't know for sure. Increase of shared_pool_size
 is
> > needed because when using MTX, private SQL areas are allocated within
 shared
> > pool. My experience with MTS on HP-UX (32-bit) wasn't particulary good,
 because
> > maximum for all shared memory areas is 1.7G in this case, and with 1200
> > sessions it wasn't possible to have enough shared pool.
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 15 2001 - 03:41:29 CDT