| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: a sad story for Oracle DBAs
A copy of this was sent to "SV" <sv_at_phystech.com>
(if that email address didn't require changing)
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 14:18:07 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
>
>This might or might not have been "a major joke".
>One thing became clear to me though - you and your idiot friend
>are jerks and a jokes themselves.
>Making conclusions about some system's setup on
>the basis of just one fugure is a sure sign of idiocy.
>
>I'm managing quite a bigger system (3Gb RAM, 6 CPUs)
>and my SGA looks like this:
>
>Total System Global Area 1301761344 bytes
>Fixed Size 38988 bytes
>Variable Size 72266996 bytes
>Database Buffers 1228800000 bytes
>Redo Buffers 655360 bytes
>
>Would your moronic friend refer to this system as "a major joke"
>if I tell him the "Fixed Size" of SGA on my system is only 39kB ?
>
Why would he? The Fixed Size is the size of the structure of pointers of System Global Area (SGA) and it doesn't change at all with any parameters in the INIT.ORA. You cannot in any way affect the fixed size. It varies slightly from version to version and on my 'smaller' system my fixed size varies from version to version:
Fixed Size 49772 bytes (7.2.3) Fixed Size 39696 bytes (7.3.2) Fixed Size 39808 bytes (7.3.3) Fixed Size 47296 bytes (8.0.3) Fixed Size 43668 bytes (8.1.2)
>As a side note: our database performs like charm even though
>it's used for mostly ad-hoc queries.
>
>Cordially,
>Serge
>
>
>>Setting SGA to be 18M for a DEDICATED 896M NT system is just one of the
>>many absurd stories. I still have to see how you justify this setting.
>>
>>: 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,
>>
>>Simply not true. Now you are saying it was probably a typo. Where is the
>>argument about supporting "hundreds of SQL*Net" connections using 18M SGA?
>>Even if (which is not the case) it was migrated from a 8K block system,
>>the SGA size could go no more than 18*4 = 72M (for a 896M system).
>>Let me help you, how about trying this: "perhaps they used an init.ora
>>from an 64K block size and used it on a 2k database."
>>
>>: Perhaps this company turned you or your friend down for a job...
>>
>>Very interesting thought, do you always think in this way? This case has
>>nothing with me or my friend personally.
>>
>>FYI:
>>I am happily working as an Oracle DBA for an Oracle6 to Oracle7 project.
>>My friend was ACTUALLY offered a position by this company, and is
>>currently evaluating this offer.
>>And you think I would be interested in working for this company? I was
>>never and will never be interested, that I can assure you.
>>
>>By the way, are you also working in a consulting company?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>An Oracle certified DBA
>>
>>
>>: 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?
>>
>>
>
Thomas Kyte
tkyte_at_us.oracle.com
Oracle Government
Herndon VA
http://govt.us.oracle.com/ -- downloadable utilities
Anti-Anti Spam Msg: if you want an answer emailed to you, you have to make it easy to get email to you. Any bounced email will be treated the same way i treat SPAM-- I delete it. Received on Tue Apr 14 1998 - 10:05:45 CDT
 |
 |