Re: Sorry, but...
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2012.01.10.13.16.10_at_gmail.com>
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:45:30 -0800, onedbguru wrote:
> You guys must have very small requirements if 64GB/RAM is considered
> "big". Some of the big iron at the site in question have 3-4x that
> much. At a separate site, I have managed SGA's at more than twice that
> size - and then to have that SGA in a 3-node RAC cluster.
I have a rule, I never engage in "mine is bigger than yours" type of
debate. However, I do think that every DBA should question the need for
such gigantic monsters. You see, I was working for a company that has
been servicing over 900 online users using IBM 3940J with MVS, CICS and
DL/I, with 32MB RAM. Yes, it was "M", not a "G". The machine has had
something called "NCP" (Network Control Processor) controling the screen
I/O done by CICS, it had something called "smart I/O channel", able to
produce up to 5 MB/sec IO and 900 users were happily chugging along. So,
I would really question the need for 64 GB or more of RAM, unless there
are thousands of connected users.
Of course, people usually choose the wrong technology. Such apps with
massive number of users should not be done by using Groovy, Hibernate and
EJB. If such apps are written in Perl, performance is usually very good.
-- http://mgogala.byethost5.comReceived on Tue Jan 10 2012 - 07:16:11 CST