Tuning attempt

From: Norman Dunbar <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:46:59 +0100
Message-ID: <E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA70388838D@lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk>

Afternoon all,

<ASIDE>
Has this list gone 'troppo' recently and I missed out or something, we're all so damned picky all of a sudden. If we don't all calm down and get back to a nice friendly 'society' again, we'll have that 'oracleuser' chappy sniping at every bleeding post we make instead of just everything Daniel posts.
</ASIDE>

As far as I remember, Oracle advise not to use more than one third of the available RAM so there a limit on how much can be allocated. And, I also think that there is a workaround for the 2 Gb shared segment size in Win2K, but I can't remember what it is - sorry :o(

Cheers,
Norman.

PS. If you lot don't lighten up a bit, I shall post examples of my sense of humour - you won't like that :o)

Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk

Tel: 0113 289 6265
Fax: 0113 289 3146
URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
-------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: afilonov_at_yahoo.com (Alex Filonov) [mailto:afilonov_at_yahoo.com] Posted At: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:32 PM Posted To: server
Conversation: Tuning attempt
Subject: Re: Tuning attempt

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<3e933403$0$21985$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com>... > I have 25 gb of ram, should I allocate 24.9gb to library cache and 0.1gb to
> buffer cache?
>

>> Do you need to take everything literally?
<SNIP>
>> I said "as much as
>> you can", not "as much as you have".
<SNIP>
>> And, AFAIK, you can't have shared segment bigger than 2G on Win2K,
which
>> means that buffer cash + shared pool < 2G.
Received on Wed Apr 09 2003 - 10:46:59 CDT