Re: Please help - ORA 04030: out of process memory...

Dear Sybrand,

Sorry if I did not express myself precisely enough. Let me got to the technical part of your response first...

The shared pool size was about 50MB (52428800 if you like) which I believe is a minimum size if you use java component. I created only 8000 db blocks which takes about another 64MB. The things like sort area size are rather small to. I increased it first to 1-2MB first and then put back 64k (one of the suggestions on Metalink was to decrease sort area size).
If I sum all this together the SGA still should be less than physical memory. It is even less than 50% of it which I believe is optimal size for the SGA (please correct me if I have wrong information... ). While these are minimum settings I used also tried to increase SGA parameters. It did not solve the problem and apparently the problem seems not to be related to the lack of SGA (it would be ORA-04031 then) and not to the fact that SGA would be too big (there should be still reserve in RAM).

I understand the 384MB of RAM is not top end computer, no argue about that. I think Oracle stated 128MB-minimum(actually I checked - its only 96MB :-) ) and 256 MB (recommended).
It is fully accepted if you have different experience with requirements but if you think 384MB is not enough or *nothing* for such database then please state how much is *enough*. Knowing how much is enough has more value than just knowing *the more the better*...so I don't have to jump and run to the store for new memory/computer after first problem..

Regarding to the size of the database. It was probably again my inaccurate expression. First there can be a doubt what the *size of the database* means - you may think about it as only the size of the datafiles on the disk, someone may think about it as the amount of all resources it takes including how much memory it occupy. I'm not in the position to say which language is the only right one. But anyway in my previous message I did not refer the size of the database to the SGA at all! I mentioned that the database was empty without any application because you *for some reason* referred to some *ill application* as a possible cause of the problem. Please note I stated that the problem occurred during the upgrade of the database (in first case) and during creation of new instance (second case) and *NOT* while running some ill application.

The Oracle 8.1.7.2.1 (or 8.1.7.2.7) was some time a current version and I believe that many people was using it. I was hoping that some people discovered the problem and may have suggestion like "yes, its known problem XXXX and you can fix it by patch YYYY
or you can set this and this parameter to fix the problem". Or at least something like "yes this is a known problem but unfortunately the fix is available only in the release ZZZZ"...
I tried to explain that I was using this version not because I liked it but because it was somehow required.
There are companies for which the validity of their business is depend on the certification of the SW they use. Don't ask me why some applications are certified on version of database which makes much more problems than uncertified ones.
Upgrading is may be the easiest solution but may not be the option to choose from. Its ok on my test instance but I may go next to the client and face this problem.
I hope you understand my question now and know what kind of answer about I'm looking for... Its ok if you don't have it handy.

Now to *emotional* part of your reply.
I really did not mean anything else thanked you for your response. Any measurement of the knowledge, dehonesting someone or anything like that :)) I recognize the quantity and effort you spend in answering questions in the forum and really appreciate it. I honestly think your knowledge of Oracle much higher than mine or most of the people in the newsgroup. I can also assure you that I was never in doubt that there are many things I don't know and not just about Oracle architecture. But I would suggest the same to you. There are lots of people who think they know a lot but there are many things in the world which people think they know but they only believe they know. With all respect to your knowledge it can happen easily also to you. For example you said "If you have a 1.6Gb pagefile your SGA must be bigger than your physical RAM" but that's not your knowledge, that's only your guess. The memory use may grow for many other reasons not just by setting huge SGA.
Even trivial thing like reading. You may think you know how to read and you know much more. But you only you know. In fact you did not read all what was written and you have read something what was not written. I do not like when people on technical form start talk too much about emotions, ethics or other stupid things but please consider first before you say someone he does know nothing. The misunderstanding can be also on your side.

Beside the fact that your last replay was not that polite I still recognize your effort to help and going to thank you again. Hope you take it better this time.

Kind regards,
Henry

"Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:2s2qdvcueeem0bqn0jc1morivs70bt971d_at_4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:38:54 GMT, "Henry" <henry_2303_at_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Sybrand,
> >
> >I think the SGA was smaller than physical memory, the database was empty,
no
> >application yet. The pagefile growed when I ran the upgrade or in
particular
> >prvtaqis.plb in order to recreate one invalid object left after
> >catproc.sql..
> >
> >Also when I created a new database it was just a default template
database -
> >rather small even for my RAM...
> >
> >Anyway thanks for your reply.
> >
> >Henry
>
>
> Please brush up your knowledge of the Oracle architecture. The size of
> SGA is statically defined by parameters, and has *NOTHING* ( I repeat
> *NOTHING*) to do with the size of the database.
> The SGA is also by default in *PAGED* memory.
> Could you *please* issue: show parameter shared_pool_size from
> sql*plus
>
> 384 Mb of RAM is definitely insufficient for the default template
> database.
>
> The way you respond shows you know absolutely nothing about Oracle. It
> offends me in your last line you seem to say 'I know better'. That
> isn't true though.
>
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
> To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Received on Wed Jun 04 2003 - 12:57:02 CDT