Re: Memory limit for Win2000 and Oracle 8.1.7

Hello to you all.

First off the platform choise is not mine to make, I just like to know if we are heading into trouble :-)

The database size is in the order of 100 GB, and the number of users is not large. Say 20 at most.

The system is an automatic data communications system where users only set up the working parameters, validate the generated results and generate yet more data to be exchanged.

Exchanging data incur calculations to check that requirements are met. Checking these requirements can mean recursively calculating sums and products of values in time series, as defined by the formulas/equations the users have put into the system.

It is the calculation that uses the vast amount of memory since its being perfomed in PL/SQL packages directly in the Oracle server.

We have made extensive work on minimizing the usage of memory, rewriting all functions using collections with the "nocopy" specifyer and using even more smart CAST operations to efficiently cross the SQL <=> PL/SQL border.

The system is smart and configurable in the extreme but it puts quite a strain on the hardware :-)

And I still need to know if the combination of Oracle 8.1.7 and Windows 2000 advanced server will allow the instance to acces more than 4 GB of memory :-)

greetings from Denmark

Jesper Wolf Jespersen

"Joe Maloney" <mpir_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d17bad25.0109121145.49b0a3f4_at_posting.google.com...
> How big is your database? and how many users? What are they doing?
>
> I have a 600GB NT 4/Oracle 8.0.5 database that runs adequately in 1GB
> of memory.
>
> To be honest, I have been doing databses for a long time. I am still
> getting used to the idea of 10 digit SGAs (but I have a couple.)
>
>
> pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote in message
news:<1e8276d6.0109120555.60b987c4_at_posting.google.com>...
> > "Jesper Wolf Jespersen" <NOjwjSPAM_at_ehuset.com> wrote in message
news:<peGn7.2499$lk7.58669_at_news.get2net.dk>...
> > > We are in the process of setting up a rather large database running
under
> > > Oracle 8.1.7 and Windows 2000 server(probably advanced server).
> > >
> > > In Windows NT 4.0 and Oracle 8.1.7 we had problems with memory. The
> > > NT-Oracle combination did not support more than 3 GB of memory for a
single
> > > Oracle Instance, which was not enough when there were lots of
activity.
> > > One way of curing that problem on NT4.0 was to reduce the size of the
SGA,
> > > thus freeing up memory for the free memory used bu oracle.
> > > Another way to cure the problem was to start the second instance up
and run
> > > in OPS configuration, here the SGA could be kept at optimum size while
> > > stille allowing for all the loose memory, simply since sessions are
> > > distributed over two physical machines.
> > > The Oracle homepage talks about 4 GB pr instance, and if NT allows,
there
> > > should be access to 8 GB pr instance.
> > >
> > > Now that statement is a bit to loose for my taste, 4 GB wont cut it
but 8 GB
> > > might. Who has experience with this kind of memory allocation in
Win2000
> > > with Oracle 8.1.7 ?
> > >
> > > The reason our database uses all that memory is that an awfull amount
of
> > > PL/SQL collections are being used for calculation, and oracle is not
so good
> > > at garbage collection as they want us to believe :-)
> >
> >
> > I do not want to start flamewars, but I think that if your needs are
> > so extensive, then can be a good idea to switch to another platform.
> > For example with Solaris or HP-UX platform you will have no problem
> > with humble 4 gigs of memory.
> > My experiences told me that Unix environments are more stable
> > sollution for larger Oracle applications.
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________
> >
> > Dusan Bolek, Ing.
> > Oracle team leader
> >
> > Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
> > can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
> > this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
> > proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
> > email.
Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 17:00:52 CDT