On Apr 20, 3:32 pm, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 08:14:40 -0700, dbaplusp..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 19, 5:22 am, "Dereck L. Dietz" <diet..._at_ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> > That's my take. The limitations to 4gb are all based on the 32-bit
> >> > architecture. 2 to the 32nd power = 4 billion = 4GB. That's the math
> >> > side of it; the direct memory addressing limitation of a 64-bit
> >> > architecture is... well, a lot more than 4GB.
>
> >> > Definitely do your own digging into the specs of 32-bit versus 64-bit
> >> > Windows, *and* 32-bit versus 64-bit Oracle. But I think you'll find
> >> > that the resourcing under 64-bit is a lot more sizeable, and all the
> >> > hokey config jazz you have to do under 32-bit Windows won't be needed.
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >IIn 32 bit, limit is 2GB and not 4GB
>
> Incorrect. When booted with the correct switches the limit is 3 Gb,
> not 2 Gb. And adding just another Gig usually won't help you a damn,
> unless you subscribe to the silver bullet religion promoted by DKB.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA
I was referring to plain 32 bit Oracle without doing anything special
is OS. On UNIX system, Oracle always refer
to limit of 2GB. I was suprised why some people are syaing limit is
4GB.
I do not subscrbe to any silver bullet, yet open to taking advnatge
of 64 bit Oracle and setting large db_buffer cache.
Received on Fri Apr 20 2007 - 16:47:42 CDT
