Re: Process and sessions overhead
From: Greg Rahn <greg_at_structureddata.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:02:52 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimfBn+i8JnfY=pAnKDP36k3_KdumOvuCE4A1cce_at_mail.gmail.com>
Because curiosity is killing me, what is the requirement to have 1000 sessions, let alone 2000? That just seems broken to me. The reason I bring this up is because there isn't just potential issues at the database level, most OS perform much worse with that many processes. Think about the time sharing model when there are 2000 processes to schedule.
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:02:52 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimfBn+i8JnfY=pAnKDP36k3_KdumOvuCE4A1cce_at_mail.gmail.com>
Because curiosity is killing me, what is the requirement to have 1000 sessions, let alone 2000? That just seems broken to me. The reason I bring this up is because there isn't just potential issues at the database level, most OS perform much worse with that many processes. Think about the time sharing model when there are 2000 processes to schedule.
I believe that Andrew Holdsworth (my boss) is doing an
"over-processed" demo as part of the IOUG tour which is based off the
one he did for OOW10.
http://www.ioug.org/tabid/194/Default.aspx
Maybe someone on this list has attended one and can comment.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP) <JC1706_at_att.com> wrote:
> What is the memory overhead of increasing processes and sessions ? Say I
> current have 1000 sessions and I want to increase that to 2000 sessions: how
> much extra memory would I use assuming no additional processes sessions are
> really used ?
-- Regards, Greg Rahn http://structureddata.org -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Mar 08 2011 - 13:02:52 CST