Re: ORA-4030

From: Chuck <chuckh_at_softhome.net>
Date: 24 Feb 2003 15:38:29 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns932C6C3F3A087chuckhsofthomenet@130.133.1.4>

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in news:sF26a.54112$jM5.136291_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com:

> "Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_nospam.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:srrc5vcde59o0j42jtkts0jdbiv9l2h8vj_at_4ax.com...

>> On 21 Feb 2003 16:13:07 GMT, Chuck <chuckh_at_softhome.net> wrote:
>>

> <snip>
>

>> Your Oracle process gets way too much memory. You shouldn't allocate
>> more than one third of physical memory. Allocating more will result
>> in excessive paging. Also by design of the Winblows O/S no process
>> will get more than 2G *ever*, even if you have Advanced Server
>> installed. 
>>

>
> Hi Sybrand,
>
> *Ever* is probably too strong an expression as there are ways to get
> past this limit, you can get to 3G easy enough but going any higher
> comes at a questionable cost.
>
> But it is still possible.
>

You are referring to the /3g switch in the boot.ini file which we are doing tomorrow. Then we should be able to use all of the physical RAM in the box.

My question is if this is only a database server, why wouldn't you want let the RDBMS use all the memory in the box that it can? If you don't use it, it's wasted. The /3g switch will allows users processes (i.e. oracle.exe) to go up to 3g while reducing memory available to the o/s to 1g. The o/s isn't using anywhere near that.

My other question, and maybe I'm just dense, is why isn't Oracle releasing the sort memory back to the o/s as the documentation plainly states it's supposed to? Even if it's only releasing it back to the oracle.exe processes heap (someone referenced it uses malloc() and that's where that function get's it's memory from), that memory should be available for another process to use. IMO, the RDBMS is not functioning as documented. I've asked Oracle support this same question before and their answer is always "We'll get back to you on that", then they never do. I suppose it's time to ask them the same question again. Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 09:38:29 CST