Re: session high_water_mark

On Aug 10, 8:49 am, joebaye..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:15 am, joebaye..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I need to get a session_connected high water mark on my 9208 database.
>
> > Using
>
> > select RESOURCE_NAME, CURRENT_UTILIZATION, MAX_UTILIZATION,
> > INITIAL_ALLOCATION from v$resource_limit where
> > resource_name='sessions'
>
> > I got the answer as 79
>
> > using
>
> > SESSIONS_MAX SESSIONS_WARNING SESSIONS_CURRENT SESSIONS_HIGHWATER
> > USERS_MAX
> > ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------
> > ----------
> > 0 0 68
> > 68 0
>
> > I got the answer as 68.
>
> > What is more accurate?
>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> using select * from v$licence, I got
> SESSIONS_MAX SESSIONS_WARNING SESSIONS_CURRENT SESSIONS_HIGHWATER
> USERS_MAX
> ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------
> ----------
> 0 0 68
> 68 0
>
> I got the answer as 68.
>
> v$licence and v$resource_limit is not consistent. Which one is more
> accurate?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would expect v$license to be more 'accurate' as it's tracking the sessions as they connect, where v$resource_limit is just that, resource limits. The total number of allowed concurrent sessions would be 79 (the limit); the actual max concurrent sessions this system has connected is 68.

Others, of course, are free to offer differing opinions.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Fri Aug 10 2007 - 09:07:12 CDT