Re: SGA_MAX_SIZE vs. SGA_TARGET

From: Neil Chandler <neil_chandler_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 18:54:28 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB404-EAS67D3E7FD6CC65CF9F455A85560_at_phx.gbl>

It depends upon your platform. Most platforms allocate max_size so having a lower sga_target is pointless and a waste of memory. Some platforms do not (Solaris), and only allocate sga_target, with max_size an unused top limit.

Neil.
sent from my phone

> On 5 Sep 2015, at 18:51, Dba DBA <oracledbaquestions_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> yeah this is old. I know its on the web. However, the responses I see are not to the question I have.
>
> What is the point to having two parameters? If SGA_MAX_SIZE reserves memory for oracle as an upper bound, but would I want to be able to raise and lower SGA_TARGET? What do I do with the 'spare memory'. PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET is separate and not taken from memory reserved with SGA_MAX_SIZE
>
> db_cache,shared_pool, large_pool,streams, java, etc... all come out of SGA_TARGET. So what is the point to this? I am missing something.
>
> I have I have 20 GB SGA_MAX_SIZE and a 10 GB SGA_TARGET. What is oracle doing with the other 10 GB?
>

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

Received on Sat Sep 05 2015 - 19:54:28 CEST