Re: a sad story for Oracle DBAs

Not so sad my friend, the SGA size can be justified with many reasons. perhaps they have hundreds of SQL*Net connections that have a greater need for the memory, perhaps the kind of queries are always full table scans that cant use a large SGA, perhaps they know their system and have tuned it as such whereas you have no performance stats from this system and are blindly insulting the configuration, there are many reasons to have a small SGA as mentioned, you never mentioned how big the database was only the amount of available disk space...

Shame on you.

I am not arguing against a larger SGA giving better response times, just that the machine may need the memory for other reasons...perhaps it was a typo in the init.ora, perhaps they used an init.ora from an 8K block size machine and used it on a 2K database,

Perhaps this company turned you or your friend down for a job...

Zhencan Fan wrote in message <6g34bo$dbh_at_dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>...
>Just heard this REAL story from a friend. It's no joke.
>
>One prestigious consulting company is going to deliver an Oracle
>data warehousing system for a client. Here is the hardware configuration:
>Windows NT 4.0 running on quad pentium pro 200
>896 MB RAM
>About 50 GB Harddrive space
>
>Guess how much memory they assigned for SGA: 18MB! Remember this machine
>is dedicated for this data warehouse. And they complained that Oracle on
>NT sucks!
>
>The fact that the company treats its technical people as second class
>citizens pretty much predicted this consequence.
>
>A sad story for Oracle DBAs or what?
Received on Sat Apr 04 1998 - 00:00:00 CST