Re: Does anybody really use Oracle 8i on Win2k?

>
> tingl wrote in message ...
> >
> >First of all, number of concurrent users does not necessarily show
> >scalability.
> >There are other variables in the equation as well. Assuming you are
> >running 32-bit Intel platform, your SGA size can be at most about 3G
> >which is a major limitation for large databases.
>
> Eeee - luxury ! (Yorkshire accent required).
> When I were a lad, I built me fust Terabyte database
> on a machine wi' nobbut 2GB total RAM.
>
> Youngsters these days just don't know how
> lucky they are !
>

Sure, you can run it with 500M of RAM if you want to. It all depends on the type of performance you are expecting and applications you are running.
Sorry, I don't consider RAM as luxurious item these days :)  

>
> >If you think 3G of SGA is enough for your 500G database and future
> >growth, by all means go with 32-bit Wintel. Otherwise
> >industrial-strength UNIX is the best choice.
>
>
> On a more serious note - it is perfectly feasible to run 500GB of
> database on 1GB of db_block_buffers, 200MB of shared pool,
> and 20MB per user for a total of 90 concurrent Oracle processes
> before you hit the crunch 3GB (which I believe is for all threads
> under the Oracle process, not just the SGA - but I may be wrong).
>
> Large volumes of data do NOT automatically require enormous
> volumes of memory. For data warehouse systems, precision
> and disk response times are frequently much more important.

I agree but we don't know what type of applications are being run against this database. If the cache hit is too low, even pure data warehouse can benefit from some extra memory. Whether you need this extra memory depends completely on your particular system. I am simply pointing out a limitation which should be taken into consideration. Received on Wed Oct 02 2002 - 11:28:09 CDT