RE: Process and sessions overhead
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:05:33 -0500
I have been asked this question many times, but perhaps if mention that the server has 48 cpu and 256gb of memory, and 10 tb of disk, it might give you an idea of the load that is expected.
From: Greg Rahn [mailto:greg_at_structureddata.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:03 PM
To: CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)
Subject: Re: Process and sessions overhead
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 - 13:05:33 CST