or migrate to w2k3 server.
large memory is reported to be supported in the
standard edition. I still haven't tested it yet
myself.
Pd
- Jared.Still_at_radisys.com wrote:
> Or just move to advanced server.
>
>
>
>
>
> Murali_Pavuloori/Claritas_at_claritas.com
> Sent by: ml-errors_at_fatcity.com
> 12/16/2003 02:04 PM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: NT -> Win2K causes
> performance degradation..
>
>
>
> We run oracle 9.2.0.3 on Win 2000 and have observed
> that whenever the
> memory on ora.exe process reaches around 1.4G, our
> application runs into
> "Listener unable to start a dedicated server
> process" At this point no one
> will be able to connect to the db and we are forced
> to restart.
>
> We are exploring to migrate the db on to Win 2003.
>
> Murali.
>
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> | | "Boivin, Patrice |
> | | J" |
> | | <BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-|
> | | mpo.gc.ca> |
> | | Sent by: |
> | | ml-errors_at_fatcity|
> | | .com |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | 12/16/2003 03:44 |
> | | PM |
> | | Please respond to|
> | | ORACLE-L |
> | | |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | |
> | To: Multiple recipients of list
> ORACLE-L
> <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> |
> | cc:
> |
> | Subject: RE: NT -> Win2K causes
> performance degradation..
> |
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> I'll throw gasoline on the fire here...
>
> On Win2K you may hit resource limits when you get to
> 1.5G or so memory
> used
> on a 4G server...
>
> Because Windows allocates half the memory to the
> kernel processes, half to
> the user processes.
>
> Patrice.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yechiel Adar
> [mailto:adar76_at_inter.net.il]
> Sent: December 11, 2003 10:40 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: NT -> Win2K causes performance
> degradation..
>
> The /3GB does not work for the simple reason
> that in W2K you have
> 3GB
> as max address space. At least that what my
> sysadmin tells me (after
> checking with MS).
>
> Yechiel Adar
> Mehish
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Drake
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: NT -> Win2K causes performance
> degradation..
>
> Mark,
>
> My guess is, that the new OS re-instated the
> file system caching.
> By default, 41% (yes, it should have been
> 42%) of physical memory
> will be allocated to filesystem caching, as
> W2K thinks it a
> fileserver (and domain controller, web
> server, print server, etc)
> until you tell it otherwise.
>
> This is much improved in w2k3 server - where
> you tell it what you
> want it to be.
>
> A good sysadmin would have set the OS to
> "optimize throughput for
> network applications" which would have turned
> off the filesystem
> caching. Ok, its only one radio button to
> select, so an MSCE could
> set it also.
>
> Surprisingly enough, in W2K Server - changing
> this setting does not
> require a reboot, although I don't know if
> the changes take effect
> until after a system restart. That's not the
> sort of thing that I
> usually test, as NT4 had me trained to reboot
> afterwards.
>
> the other thing may be, that the boot.ini no
> longer supports the
> /3GB or /PAE switches as Jared mentioned -
> but that should not
> cause
> the symptoms you are reporting.
>
> hth.
>
> Paul
>
> Mark Leith <mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We've been asked a question from one of our
> clients that I'm a
> little
> stumped on.
>
> They run an OLTP database (Oracle 8.1.7),
> and have recently
> upgraded their
> NT machine to Windows 2000, they were
> running with 2gb of memory,
> and
> upgraded that to 4gb in the process. As they
> increased physical
> memory, they
> also increased their SGA size &
> db_block_buffers.
>
> Since they've upgraded they have noticed a
> significant decrease in
> performance (the way it was described to me
> was "it was 7 out of
> 10, and is
> now 3 out of 10"..).
>
> Has anybody else done a system upgrade of
> this nature that has
> caused less
> than desirable effects? Any pointers as to
> what to look at? We've
> requested
> some stats (top wait stats etc.) and I'll
> feed these back as and
> when I get
> them - but I thought I'd throw this out to
> you guys in the vague
> hope thatsomeone has experienced some
> relatively similar
> experiences.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ===================================================
> Mark Leith | T: +44 (0)1905 330 281
> Sales & Marketing | F: +44 (0)870 127 5283
> Cool Tools UK Ltd | E: mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk
>
> ===================================================
>
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Paul Drake
INET: discgolfdba_at_yahoo.com
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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 Dec 16 2003 - 19:29:25 CST
