Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Unix: File cache size on Solaris

RE: Unix: File cache size on Solaris

From: Steve Adams <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:48:53 -0800
Message-ID: <>

Hi Kam,

The inability to limit the amount of memory available for file system buffers used to be a problem under earlier versions of Solaris. At 2.6 and above just make sure that 'priority_paging' is in use and all will be well (in this regard at least).

@ Regards,
@ Steve Adams

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2001 21:20
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Dear List,

We are running Oracle on Solaris 2.6, I am new to Solaris env and wondering anyone can explain to me on the following:

We have 6G of memory on the Sun E5500 server, when I do a prtmem command, I notice the size for "File Cache" is about 3.9G big and 100M free space. I was curious about what is taking up all the space, our Unix admin explained to me that under Solaris, the OS will grep any free memory as unix buffer and give it back to process when needed and we can't configure how much memory Solaris keep as unix buffer. I remember under HP-UX, you can keep a limit on how much memory the OS can keep under buffer cache. In our case, will such a large pool of buffer cache has any performance impact, Solaris must spend a lot of time maintaining this pool and also it probably very expensive to allocate and deallocate buffer between OS and user processes. Any ideal??


Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
Author: Steve Adams

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Tue Feb 20 2001 - 06:48:53 CST

Original text of this message