Re: MTS and Memory

On 2004-09-09, Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> We have two gigs of ram in the box and currently 1.2 gig is being used,
>> 900meg allocated to the SGA. So I would think that I could push
>> another 2-300 megs to the SGA (large pool specifically) so I can handle
>> more users.
>>
>> The reason we switched to MTS is because we estimated that the database
>> could only handle 535ish dedicated connections. We expect a peak of
>> over 600.
>>
>> The problem isn't within the application its the number of users and OS
>> limitations... You don't need to lecture me on their choice of OS, i've
>> already lectured them.
>
> Sounds like another case of Voodoo Tuning.
>
> Why not find out some *facts* before thinking your way to more memory
> allocations?
>
> And maybe you could let the group in on some of your factual secrets, such
> as the minor details as to what this particular OS they've chosen is, and
> what Oracle version they are running.
>
> Then, you might usefully ask
>
> What's the busy rate on your dispatchers?
> What's the busy rate on your shared servers?
>
> And then one might diagnostically enquire as to how many ORA-04031 errors

>> So I would think that I could push
>> another 2-300 megs to the SGA (large pool specifically) so I can handle
>> more users.

        Well he clearly seems interested in supporting a larger workload. Depending on the usage level of his large pool now, such concerns might be warranted.

> you've been receiving lately (and if the answer is none, then you don't
> need a bigger large pool).

        I'd suggest doing a swag calculation on the amount of large pool used per MTS connection and base your sizing on that.

-- 

	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.