Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: what advantage for using MTS

Re: what advantage for using MTS

From: Connor McDonald <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:00:40 +0100
Message-ID: <3B505088.4E4F@yahoo.com>

Mark D Powell wrote:
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote in message news:<3b4d57d3$1_at_news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > Think of it this way.
> >
> > I fire up SQL Plus. I thereby obtain a dedicated server process, together
> > with a private bit of memory space (the PGA). I then go for a smoke break.
> > Oh, then I go for lunch, take in a bit of shopping, have a snooze on a park
> > bench, and eventually come back to the office for a bit of a natter with the
> > office floozies. Finally, about 4 hours later, I issue my long-awaited SQL
> > command (inevitably, 'select * from emp') and do some real work on the
> > server.
> >
> > For X hours, my server process has been sitting doing squat diddly, and
> > chewing up CPU cycles and (more importantly) swathes of scarce memory to
> > boot.
> >
> > That's exactly what MTS is designed to avoid (if *I* don't stress a shared
> > server process, someone else likely will). Wasted resources.
> >
> > It's also probably the only way you'll get hundreds of concurrent users
> > connected to your server, unless you have shares in a Taiwanese silicon
> > foundry.
> >
> > I've actually swung in my opinions in the past few months. I've come to the
> > conclusion that you need a really good reason *Not* to be running MTS, given
> > that even under an MTS setup, DBAs and people with heavy needs can acquire a
> > dedicated server connnection when they need to.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> >
> >
> Howard, it used to be that if a session issued a wait for an alert
> (dbms_alert) that it would cause queueing for all the session assigned
> to the same MTS server so if your application made use of alerts you
> needed to avoid using MTS or assign the alert waiters to a dedicated
> session which may or may not be an easy thing to do. Question: Do you
> know if this is still true?
>
> -- Mark D Powell --

I can't comment on the specific alert question, but I'm still pretty sure that any session deemed as "active" (eg dbms_lock.sleep(n)) will grab and not release a shared server...

hth
connor

-- 
==============================
Connor McDonald

http://www.oracledba.co.uk

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."
Received on Sat Jul 14 2001 - 09:00:40 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US