Re: MTS and Memory

From: Chuck <chuckh_nospam_at_softhome.net>
Date: 9 Sep 2004 19:29:51 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns955F9DA652chuckhnospamsofthome@130.133.1.4>

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in news:4140adc5$0$27888$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au:

> Chuck wrote:
>

>> Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.verwijderdit.demon.nl> wrote in
>> news:mp41k0pjds927314t0o7ij6l3n02ot2cdk_at_4ax.com:
>> 
>>> On 9 Sep 2004 10:03:55 -0700, "Dave" <david.best_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Now my question is, since i'm using MTS how far can I bump up my
>>>>SGA.. 
>>> 
>>> first of all: why do you think using MTS  you *should* 'bump the
>>> SGA' 
>> 
>> Probably because Oracle recommends it with MTS. 

>
> It does no such thing.
>

>> Since the UGA is 
>> allocated primarily out of the large pool, and that is part of the
>> SGA, you need to increase the size of the SGA (via the large pool) to
>> handle those UGAs.

>
> And where do you think those UGAs were before you implemented a large
> pool (or before implementing MTS, come to that)?

Prior to implementing MTS they were in the dedicated server's memory space, not part of the sga at all. Or did I miss something that changed between 8i and 9i?

> They were with the PGA, or in the shared pool.
>
> So now they're not and they're in the large pool instead.
>
> So tell me where the memory *increase* is in that, as opposed to the
> memory re-distribution?

Because when you switched to MTS, they moved out of the dedicated server and into the SGA. The SGA therefor needs to be bigger. Received on Thu Sep 09 2004 - 14:29:51 CDT