Re: DBMS_LDAP
From: Bill <billshatner71_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7b251896-e170-4bb2-9bdd-9400a20b2ae9_at_g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 28, 3:34 pm, Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bor..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > Hi, yes it's a performance issue.
>
> > Last year we hit max processes. This I believe was because it wasn't
> > releasing the connections to AD fast enough.
>
> > Unfortunately, I didn't get an opportunity at the time to see where
> > the resources were being used, though our UNIX admin said there that
> > from the OS point of view, most of the CPU was being used for the
> > binding to AD accounts.
>
> Which were probably due to the number of sessions. Not running with
> multiple dispatchers, are you?
> If you were, one (of a few) dispatchers would handle all connections.
> Now - every connection is a dedicated process
>
> --
>
> Regards, Frank van Bortel
>
> Topposting in Usenet groups I regard as offensive - I will not reply
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7b251896-e170-4bb2-9bdd-9400a20b2ae9_at_g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 28, 3:34 pm, Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bor..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > Hi, yes it's a performance issue.
>
> > Last year we hit max processes. This I believe was because it wasn't
> > releasing the connections to AD fast enough.
>
> > Unfortunately, I didn't get an opportunity at the time to see where
> > the resources were being used, though our UNIX admin said there that
> > from the OS point of view, most of the CPU was being used for the
> > binding to AD accounts.
>
> Which were probably due to the number of sessions. Not running with
> multiple dispatchers, are you?
> If you were, one (of a few) dispatchers would handle all connections.
> Now - every connection is a dedicated process
>
> --
>
> Regards, Frank van Bortel
>
> Topposting in Usenet groups I regard as offensive - I will not reply
We're not using Shared Server, just dedicated processes and letting the three application servers deal with the connection pooling.
There's enough RAM to startup shared server and allocate lots of memory to it but I've read negatives about Shared Server and if the apps servers are doing the pooling maybe it negates the need for it.
My initial thought was to increase the processes parameter. Received on Sun Mar 28 2010 - 13:47:51 CDT