Re: Sorry, but...

From: Mladen Gogala <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>

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.

Received on Tue Jan 10 2012 - 07:16:11 CST

Original text of this message