Re: ORA-04031

From: (wrong string) ørn Eirik Marthinsen <bjorn.eirik.news_at_cappelen.no>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:09:27 +0100
Message-ID: <vOK6a.26479$CG6.432089_at_news4.e.nsc.no>


"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> wrote in message news:2687bb95.0301291636.5acde03b_at_posting.google.com...
> patrice.lenoir_at_eurotunnel.com (Patrice LENOIR) wrote in message
 news:<28470373.0301281120.5567e168_at_posting.google.com>...
> > Hi
> >
> > I experience since Monday the ORA-04031 unable to allocate 4096 bytes
> > of shared memory. I've increase the shared_pool from 150MB to 300MB
> > and it doesn't resolve the problem.
> >
> > I'd like to know from this group the experience of the others and how
> > they resolve it?.
> >
> > thank's
> >
> > patrice
>
> What version of Oracle are you on? There have been numerous shared
> pool space management bugs, which could be responsible depending on
> your version. If you have support you best bet might just be to open
> an iTAR. When we migrated from 8.0.5 to 8.1.7 we had to add 25% to
> our shared pool after applying a patch for one bug to run the same
> applications. When we went to the 64 bit version we had to double our
> shared pool size.
>

I've got two systems, a test system and a production system. The production system is a HP/UX 11.0 and the test system is a RH 7.3. Both systems are running 8.1.7.4.0 and both systems have 2GB of memory. The HP box runs 64 bit and the RH box runs 32 bit. Everything runs fine on the HP-box, but 04031 keeps popping up on the RH box every so often. Originally the init.ora was the same on both, but now I've doubled the shared_pool on the RH box and the problem is still there. Do I have to keep increasing it? It's currently 800MB and that's pretty big if you ask me... The weird thing is that it works perfectly on the production system with heavy load, but keeps bugging me on the test system with hardly any load at all....

I'm tempted to blame Linux for this, but I guess that will just buy me a lot of flames.....

BEM Received on Tue Feb 25 2003 - 15:09:27 CET

Original text of this message