From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Sun Aug 29 15:45:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7TKjBN28027 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:45:11 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7TKjBI28022 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:45:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 06E9E72C100; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29950-45; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4260972C193; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:46:59 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: oracle-l@freelists.org Delivered-To: oracle-l@freelists.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 3EEEF72C1BF for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28137-96 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.cybcon.com (mail.cybcon.com [216.190.188.5]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 9E63472C01A for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from dsl2-6 (dsl2-6.cybcon.com [208.186.116.6]) by mail.cybcon.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7TKnVi32394; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:49:31 -0700 Subject: Re: So how big is your buffer cache ? From: Jared Still To: Oracle-L Freelists Cc: Richard Foote , Don Burleson In-Reply-To: <051501c48cf6$1aded0b0$0100000a@FOOTE> References: <00f101c48ce7$0b3dccb0$6203a8c0@internethall> <051501c48cf6$1aded0b0$0100000a@FOOTE> Content-type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093812617.1891.102.camel@poirot> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:50:17 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2-Information: Spam/Virus Scanned at CyberConnectics X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2: Found to be clean X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: jkstill@cybcon.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org X-archive-position: 8526 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: jkstill@cybcon.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: oracle-l@freelists.org X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org comments inline: On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 04:56, Richard Foote wrote: > Hi All, > > In an interesting insight into how Don Burleson performs tuning at the > c.d.o.s newsgroup > (http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=73f606eef5e7e99f) > . Don suggests he has "no problem throwing hardware at crappy code when the > client doesn't want to tune it". He's also basically recommending using AWE > and utilising all available RAM on 32bit windows, whether you need to or > not. I mean, AWE has no disadvantages right ... :) Richard, We are all free to disagree in this forum, but... > However, he also makes the claim that "It's not uncommon to see working sets > of frequently-referenced data of for than 30-gig for a large database. AWE > is a great techniques for 32-bit Windows databases and I do it for dozens > of databases every year, ALWAYS with great results." > > So my question to you all is how large are your largest buffer caches ? How > many of you have a buffer cache that is 30G+ ? And on 32bit windows ? > It would appear that you are putting words in Don's mouth. I read the CDOS thread, or at least parts of it, and I don't see where Don is advocating 30 GB buffer caches. I can't even find the quote you attributed to him, but just based on what you included, you've made the jump from his statement that it is "not uncommon to see working sets of frequently-referenced data of more than 30-gig" to "we created 30 gig buffer caches to hold all frequently referenced data". A good rule to keep in mind here: Treat others as you would like to be treated. You made the assertion that Don said something which in reality does not appear to be true. Not a nice thing to do. Something else to consider is this: it you want to engage Don or anyone else when you disagree with them, do it in the forum where the thread appeared. If it appears here, fine. If not, do it in CDOS, or wherever you read it. It really isn't fair to bring if over here. Jared (list owner and babysitter) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------