Re: Oracle Shared Server Implementation

From: Stefan Knecht <knecht.stefan_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:37:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP50yQ__b2WRsmXopqQfU66BPn7x59mnewHDwU52PmMmdZ15Aw_at_mail.gmail.com>

There are valid uses for it still... If you've got such a vast number of sessions that you're running out of memory, and you can't upgrade your iron.

You have to be aware that there might be potential performance impacts vs dedicated servers, as well as hitting the occasional odd bug because you're using a "non-mainstream setup" (we've hit a rather nasty one with the dispatchers for instance).

But particularly if a large chunk of your sessions are not concurrently active, but idle some of the time, you can really reduce the memory footprint of the private process memory on your system.

Again, it's not something I'd ever setup out of the box (unless maybe you've got so many sessions that no box out there can handle it with ded. servers), but it's something that can help you (at least temporarily) resolve memory issues.

Stefan

---

Stefan P Knecht
CEO & Founder
s_at_10046.ch

10046 Consulting GmbH
Schwarzackerstrasse 29
CH-8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland

Phone +41-(0)8400-10046
Cell +41 (0) 79 571 36 27
info_at_10046.ch
http://www.10046.ch

---

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jeffrey Beckstrom <JBECKSTROM_at_gcrta.org>wrote:

> When we were on 32-bit hardware, for one of our databases we had to
> implement shared servers due to hitting the 32-bit memory limit. Since that
> time, we have migrated all of our systems to 64-bit hardware. My question
> is, on 64-bit hardware is there ever a need for shared servers?
>
>
> Jeffrey Beckstrom
> Database Administrator
> Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
> Information Systems
> 1240 W. 6th Street
> Cleveland, Ohio 44113
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Mon Aug 01 2011 - 07:37:36 CDT