Re: Performance impact of inactive sessions

From: Martin T. <bilbothebagginsbab5_at_freenet.de>
Date: 19 Jan 2007 07:42:23 -0800
Message-ID: <1169221343.717810.226750@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>

EdStevens wrote:
> sybrandb wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 10:00 am, "Jack" <n..._at_INVALIDmail.com> wrote:
> > > Shortly: Nope
> > >
> > > "Martin T." <bilbothebagginsb..._at_freenet.de> wrote in messagenews:1169195643.040984.149850_at_v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > > Please bear with me if I'm being somewhat unspecific here, but I yet
> > > > don't know enough to get more specific:
> > >
> > > > I will make it short for this initial question: Would you expect a
> > > > problematic performance impact on a Oracle 9i2 database by lots (say 30
> > > > on a decent modern workstation PC) of INACTIVE sessions versus a system
> > > > where the number of active processing (say 4-5 active sessions) is the
> > > > same without these inactive sessions?
> > >
> > > > thank you,
> > > > br,
> > > > Martin- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> >
> >
> > Disagree.
> > Inactive sessions don't release their memory.
> >
> > --
> > Sybrand Bakker
> > Senior Oracle DBA

>

> True, but they also don't consume any CPU or I/O. The only way I could
> see an inactive session impacting performance would be if the memory
> consumption forced additional OS paging. And even at that, once the
> memory for the inactive session is paged out, it should pretty much be
> out of the picture until such time as it 'goes active' and has to be
> paged in.

>

> I guess it comes back to .. if you have a performance issue, identify
> the actual bottleneck and address the issue.

Thanks all for the replies.

And yes, this post was part of the search for the bottleneck. (Because we have not the tiniest clue at the moment as to where that might be :-/ )

br,
Martin Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 09:42:23 CST