Re: MTS and Memory

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:47:58 +1000
Message-ID: <41422f2a$0$968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Dave wrote:

>
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:

>> Sorry... I don't know to whom this was addressed, since it doesn't
>> follow the usual practice of *replying* to someone.

>
> Sorry, I thought it was easy to follow a threaded conversation. By
> default google doesn't include previous posts.

And in Google, your post appears not to be part of a thread at all, but gets tacked on to the end of the thread, all on its lonesome. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

> I'll do so now for your
> convienience.

How gracious of you.

>>
>> So I don't know if it was me that was making the half-assed sarcastic
>> comments and not understanding what I was writing about, or not. But
>> since I probably know more about Oracle than you've had hot dinners,
>> I'll guess it wasn't me.

>
> So, with all that knowledge about Oracle you didn't really understand
> MTS until Chuck corrected you? Your awefully full of yourself (too
> many hot dinners maybe?)

Well, at least I can spell.

Go read it again. The subject of your post mentions *memory*. Chuck's second paragraph spoke about increasing *memory*. When asked, "why do you think using MTS  you should 'bump the SGA'", he replied "Probably because Oracle recommends it with MTS."

He replied to the question "Why bump up the SGA". Had he in fact been replying to the question "Why bump up the MEMORY", then my reply to him would have been spot on, because Oracle does NOT recommend bumping up the *memory*.

So, I replied the way I did, not because I don't know how Oracle works, but because I mis-read one word: I read 'memory' where I should have read "SGA". When Chuck pointed that out to me, I replied to him that my error made a hell of a difference, and that he was quite correct to have written what he did... but that the fundamental point I'd originally been making, which is that MTS does NOT require a larger *memory* allocation -that MTS involves a memory re-distribution, not a memory increase- was still correct.

If you want to criticise my speed reading skills, do so. But they did not, in this case, affect the accuracy of my reply regarding the best approach for tuning for *you*.

>

>> I don't quite see what is wrong with either of those two pieces of
>> advice, nor what is half-assed about them, nor what, particularly, is
>> sarcastic about them.

>
> Ok, sarcastic maybe not, condescending, yes. And we'll ignore that
> 50% of your advice (w.r.t MTS) was incorrect.

Actually, the fundamental part of my advice, and the bulk of my initial post to Chuck was 100% correct, as I've pointed out. One sentence of my reply was wrong, because I mis-read one word.

Now, as for sarcastic and condescending: it's funny, but the people who complain about my sarcasm are almost always those who turn out to be wrong and fundamentally flawed in the way they approach Oracle.

They also seem to miss the point. I could have written, "Oy! Stupid! You didn't tell us your O/S, your hardware, or any other details, and you expect us to make sensible suggestions!! Only an idiot would think that way". But I didn't. I instead posted polite, but pointed, comments about the lack of technical details, and that increasing memory is not perhaps the best way to go. The sarcasm and the condescension you seem to see in my posts is actually just my way of not spelling out in black and white what a moronic question you actually asked. Now, which method of replying would you prefer?

>>
>> The idea (which you appear to believe in) that you just bung memory

> at

>> Oracle and problems go away is Voodoo Tuning. That's perhaps a glib

>
> Exactly where did I say I wanted to toss memory at Oracle,

Quote: "Now my question is, since i'm using MTS how far can I bump up my SGA." You said it in black and white.

> cross my
> fingers, do a little dance and hope performance gets better? I
> didn't. I asked for advice on how to tune the SGA in an MTS
> environment, more specifically I asked if anyone had any good
> formula's.

No, you asked how far you could bump up your SGA. It's there on the record, I'm afraid.

> But did you help? No, you fired off a sarcastic comment about "Voodoo
> Tuning". And guess what, you got me on a bad day.

As I said, I could have posted that you are a complete moron for even wanting to "bump up my SGA" without any supporting tuning diagnostic facts or figures. I tried to be polite about it, and yes... moronically enough, you dismiss someone who *is* actually helping by giving you the right answer. It just happens not to be the answer you wanted to hear.

Happens all the time.

Have a nice life.

HJR Received on Fri Sep 10 2004 - 17:47:58 CDT