Re: Memory requirement for Oracle
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:29:32 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <agrcpb$i0d$1_at_venus.btinternet.com>
99 times out of 100, more memory will help. If you increase your total memory, you will be able to have more db_block_buffers, larger_shared_pool, etc. (Of course you should still size these properly, and not just give them loads of RAM. If your app is badly written, then having too big a shared pool could even reduce performance.
If you want comparisons, then for a start, I have one database (250 users, 50 or so concurrent users) with only 512M of RAM. It runs fine, but it is a relativly small database, and the developers used bind variables etc. I have another database with 1.25G RAM, and it rarely has more than 4 users at a time. It does however process a large amount of data. 2-3Gb of inserts a day (I only keep 5 weeks of data on a rolling window basis). I have found that most of the heavy duty queries run against this db are disk bound, and so adding more RAM probably won't help me here.
"JohnWood" <jwood_at_microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:V84Y8.7223$K6.366968_at_news2.telusplanet.net...
> I would like to find out what criteria would decide how much memory is
> needed for an Oracle database on a Window 2000 Server enviroment.
> I am having an Oracle database with one instance. I will have about 200
> users but only about 10 to 20 may hit the database for update/inquiry at a
> time. The vendor recommand only 1GB memory on a dual Xeon 700M box. I
> wonder if I need 4GB for performance concern.
>
> Also do any one use the new 2.4G 2nd generation Xeon. There is a server
> with dual 2.4G Xeon G2 with similar price to the Xeon 700M. I would like
to
> find if it is as reliable.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 14 2002 - 10:29:32 CEST