RE: NT -> Win2K causes performance degradation..

[Boivin, Patrice J]

Title: Message

I'll throw gasoline on the fire here...   On Win2K you may hit resource limits when you get to 1.5G or so memory used on a 4G server...   Because Windows allocates half the memory to the kernel processes, half to the user processes.   Patrice. -----Original Message----- From: Yechiel Adar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 11, 2003 10:40 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: NT -> Win2K causes performance degradation.. The /3GB does not work for the simple reason that in W2K you have 3GB as max address space. At least that what my sysadmin tells me (after checking with MS).   Yechiel Adar Mehish ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: Re: NT -> Win2K causes performance degradation.. Mark,   My guess is, that the new OS re-instated the file system caching. By default, 41% (yes, it should have been 42%) of physical memory will be allocated to filesystem caching, as W2K thinks it a fileserver (and domain controller, web server, print server, etc) until you tell it otherwise.   This is much improved in w2k3 server - where you tell it what you want it to be.   A good sysadmin would have set the OS to "optimize throughput for network applications" which would have turned off the filesystem caching. Ok, its only one radio button to select, so an MSCE could set it also.   Surprisingly enough, in W2K Server - changing this setting does not require a reboot, although I don't know if the changes take effect until after a system restart. That's not the sort of thing that I usually test, as NT4 had me trained to reboot afterwards.   the other thing may be, that the boot.ini no longer supports the /3GB or /PAE switches as Jared mentioned - but that should not cause the symptoms you are reporting.   hth.   Paul Mark Leith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, We've been asked a question from one of our clients that I'm a little stumped on. They run an OLTP database (Oracle 8.1.7), and have recently upgraded their NT machine to Windows 2000, they were running with 2gb of memory, and upgraded that to 4gb in the process. As they increased physical memory, they also increased their SGA size & db_block_buffers. Since they've upgraded they have noticed a significant decrease in performance (the way it was described to me was "it was 7 out of 10, and is now 3 out of 10"..). Has anybody else done a system upgrade of this nature that has caused less than desirable effects? Any pointers as to what to look at? We've requested some stats (top wait stats etc.) and I'll feed these back as and when I get them - but I thought I'd throw this out to you guys in the vague hope thatsomeone has experienced some relatively similar experiences. Cheers! Mark =================================================== Mark Leith | T: +44 (0)1905 330 281 Sales & Marketing | F: +44 (0)870 127 5283 Cool Tools UK Ltd | E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =================================================== http://www.cool-tools.co.uk Maximising throughput & performance --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/2003 -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mark Leith INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Ma! il message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing