or migrate to w2k3 server. large memory is reported to be supported in the standard edition. I still haven't tested it yet myself.
Pd --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Or just move to advanced server. > > > > > > Murali_Pavuloori/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 12/16/2003 02:04 PM > Please respond to ORACLE-L > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: RE: NT -> Win2K causes > performance degradation.. > > > > We run oracle 9.2.0.3 on Win 2000 and have observed > that whenever the > memory on ora.exe process reaches around 1.4G, our > application runs into > "Listener unable to start a dedicated server > process" At this point no one > will be able to connect to the db and we are forced > to restart. > > We are exploring to migrate the db on to Win 2003. > > Murali. > > > > |---------+----------------------------> > | | "Boivin, Patrice | > | | J" | > | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| > | | mpo.gc.ca> | > | | Sent by: | > | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| > | | .com | > | | | > | | | > | | 12/16/2003 03:44 | > | | PM | > | | Please respond to| > | | ORACLE-L | > | | | > |---------+----------------------------> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > | | > | To: Multiple recipients of list > ORACLE-L > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > | cc: > | > | Subject: RE: NT -> Win2K causes > performance degradation.. > | > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > 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] > > =================================================== > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Paul Drake 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-Mail 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).
