Re: MTS Configuration

Randy wrote:
>
> You are not reducing your memory requirements. You are just shifting
> them around. The memroy requirements of the user process are being
> shifted to the SGA.

This is not exactly how I read the documentation, nor how I see the results under memory. You *are* shifting the load but the memory does not move 100%. For example, we have 37 local Pro*C programs which have a *real* footprint of 1.5 MB. That's like 50 MB of code. In addition, sans MTS, we have 37 Listeners that suck up 2 to 4 MB each. Another 60 MB. When I turn on MTS, I also must start an appropriate amount of message handlers and listeners. I chose 3 and 5, on my first guess, and each provided about the same overhead as the original Listeners, so I'm out 24 MB.

I've saved a net of over 30 MB of RAM. It's not a one to one relation between listeners and processes in MTS, so you get this ramping effect until you run out of Oracle steam.

I didn't change my SGA, and performance appears to be normal, so I'm inclined to say, you can save RAM by using MTS.

How are you measuring a difference in the use of RAM? I would appreciate your benchmarking ideas so I can see if your opinion is correct for my machine.

bcmartin Received on Wed Sep 11 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST