hpuxrac wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:48 pm, GS <g..._at_canada.com> wrote:
>> The server is running Windows 2003 advanced server, 8GB RAM, 8 3Ghz Xeon
>> processors, /fastdetect and /PAE switches are in boot.ini
>>
>> Database is 9.2.0.6, shared pool 400 MB, buffer cache 800MB, large pool
>> 8MB SGA max size 1505 MB - Typical number of connected users is between
>> 75 and 125, running in dedicated server mode. Aggregate PGA target is
>> 150MB, and application connects to database via ODBC. Processes is set
>> at 150, I was thinking of increasing this but when I looked at the max
>> utilization when these errors were happening it was only 136.
>>
>> The database has been running since Sept with no problems, until a few
>> days ago when people suddenly could not connect. Looking at listener.log
>> showed a lot of TNS-12540: TNS:internal limit restriction exceeded and
>> TNS-00510: Internal limit restriction exceeded messages, along with some
>> TNS-12500 and 12560's. The number of users connected was between 120 and
>> 130, and nothing out of the ordinary was being done. I bounced the DB to
>> clear the problem and it has not happened since, and no connection
>> errors are showing in listener.log
>>
>> Since many connections are idle for long periods of time, I was
>> considering implementing MTS (or maybe DCD), but I thought that one
>> shouldn't need this (MTS) until connected users hit closer to the 1000 mark.
>>
>> Has anyone here switched to MTS, and if so, what threshold did you use
>> to make this decision?
>>
>> Or should I be looking elsewhere to find the problem and/or cure?
>>
>> thanks!
>
> People have different feelings regarding MTS that are all over the
> extremes.
>
> To me it's something to be avoided unless absolutely force to consider
> it. Doesn't sound like you are in that place.
>
> There's really no "silver bullet" number of connected sessions that
> mandates one consider MTS and running several thousand in dedicated
> isn't uncommon. It's more a consideration of available memory on the
> server ( or not ).
>
Yeah, I didn't think I was at the point where I need it either. Right
now I'm looking into more details how windows allocates the memory for
oracle, it seems odd that I am getting out of resource type messages
given the hardware I have it running on, so there must be something I'm
overlooking..
I did open an SR on this btw, and Oracles suggestion is to implement MTS
or DCD, or increase RAM on the server.
Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 22:33:27 CST
