Re: oracle 9 on windows 2000 memory problems

"Max Andersen" <max_at_militant.dk> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.09.13.15.15.557641_at_militant.dk>...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:50:24 -0800, Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >>
> > You are working with a 32 bit operating system. Nothing is going to see
> > more than 4GB
> > of memory even if you put a terabyte of RAM into the machine. There are
> > some software
> > solutions such as those from vmware (www.vmware.com) but my suggestion
> > would be
> > to either accept that you wasted 4GB of RAM or get another operating system.
>
> well, it worked, and by using the /PAE switch, the i386 architecture now
> seems to accept the memory above 4GB.
>
> Windows now sees 7,6GB memory, and Oracle uses 4,6GB at the moment (it's
> AWE enabled).
>
> Thanks for the input, though.
>
> Max

Max,

nice. I've know that the option of using indirect memory was available, but didn't see a reason to use it yet.

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

Have you benchmarked the overhead of indirect addressing? I'm thinking along the lines of 2 sample tables (e.g. a copy of all_objects with enough rows to work with) one in a buffer pool that is in memory below 4GB, one that is in a buffer pool in indirect memory space. run the same queries against, and see how much cpu is consumed in each. I believe that storing blocks in indirect memory is subject to an additional 8% overhead, space-wise. Just wondering what amount of additional cpu cost may be involved.

thanks much,

Paul Received on Sun Nov 09 2003 - 13:11:51 CST