SEO

Hi All,

We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
performed by the Oracle process?

Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
SQL so go easy on me,

Regards,

Stephen

sevans@kcpweb.net wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
> Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
> process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
> memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
> Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
> memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
> something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
> performed by the Oracle process?
>
> Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
> SQL so go easy on me,
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen

What evidence do you have that anything is being swapped to disk?

Go to http://tahiti.oracle.com and search for initialization
parameters that related to memory utilization. It is completely
configurable. But don't change anything based upon only the
information provided above. Bigger does not equal better. You
may have just wasted money putting too much RAM in the server.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

On Aug 2, 9:22 am, sev...@kcpweb.net wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
> Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
> process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
> memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
> Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
> memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
> something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
> performed by the Oracle process?
>
> Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
> SQL so go easy on me,
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen

If you run oracle on a unix platform of some kind you may have better
luck.

If you have properly installed and configured 64 bit oracle on a 64
bit os this sounds unusual.

On Aug 2, 6:22 am, sev...@kcpweb.net wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
> Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
> process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
> memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
> Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
> memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
> something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
> performed by the Oracle process?
>
> Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
> SQL so go easy on me,
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen

metalink 657456.992 seems to show your problem exactly. Says "What I
did find though, is whomever setup the Windows server set it up as a
File Server. I removed that option and now my Oracle process is using
6 gigs of memory (5 for SGA, 500 megs for PGA and then some over
head) ...My Page File Usage% is now at 1%."

Whatever that means. What didn't work for the guy was
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs...t.htm#CHDGFJJD
which tells how to grant the privilege to lock things in memory, so
I'm wondering if the real solution was something else that guy did
while fiddling about.

Since I'm a unix bigot, this is all just academic entertainment for
me.

To find the referenced document in metalink, log in there and click on
Advanced Search, and put 657456.992 in the document id box.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.ossec.net/en/attacking-lo...html#denyhosts

Thanks for all your help guy's you've given me something to go on.
Ill post back my findings.

As for running Oracle on Unix, i dont have the choice, the clients
specified Windows so for now ill just have to work it out.

Stephen

On Aug 2, 9:22 am, sev...@kcpweb.net wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
> Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
> process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
> memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
> Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
> memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
> something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
> performed by the Oracle process?
>
> Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
> SQL so go easy on me,
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen

Have you enabled large page support on Windows and Oracle, which
causes Windows to use 4MB memory page sizes rather than 4KB memory
pages? If so, I suspect that Performance Monitor is showing incorrect
information. I am running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Windows 2003 x64, total
page file size for all drives is configured at 3124MB, yet Task
Manager reports that PF usage is 13.3GB. In my case, system
performance is great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent
numbers.

Have you verified that the page file is actually 10GB in size?

Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

Charles Hooper wrote:


> Have you enabled large page support on Windows and Oracle, which
> causes Windows to use 4MB memory page sizes rather than 4KB memory
> pages? If so, I suspect that Performance Monitor is showing incorrect
> information. I am running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Windows 2003 x64, total
> page file size for all drives is configured at 3124MB, yet Task
> Manager reports that PF usage is 13.3GB. In my case, system
> performance is great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent
> numbers.

> Have you verified that the page file is actually 10GB in size?



I have read quite a few of your posts and I think
that:

a) you know what you're talking about

and

b) you genuinely try to help people.


I hope that this info can help you and/or others.


For Windows, there is a nifty/cool/rad/awesome(for Yanks
only) - (choose term which hasn't gone out of fashion, or
better yet, the one which has come back into fashion!!)


Go to www.sysinternals.com and go for procexp (process
explorer).exe - it gives more reliable results than
the Windows performance monitor.



Inconsistent numbers should not happen. The site also
has a number of other useful bits and bobs for anyone
concerned with performance.




Paul...


> Charles Hooper

On Aug 3, 9:09 pm, Charles Hooper <hooperc2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 9:22 am, sev...@kcpweb.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > We are running Oracle 10g on a Quad Dual Core Windows 2003 x64
> > Enterprise Server with 16GB of memory. I notice that the Oracle
> > process is only using 4.6 GB of Physical RAM and 10GB of Virtual
> > memory. Performance monitor is showing that the server has 8GB
> > Physical Memory free. This seems like oracle isn't using the free
> > memory very efficiently and swapping a lot out to disk, is this
> > something that can be tuned to boost performance or is it dynamically
> > performed by the Oracle process?
>
> > Thanks for your help, I'm new to Oracle having worked mainly with MS
> > SQL so go easy on me,
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Stephen
>
> Have you enabled large page support on Windows and Oracle, which
> causes Windows to use 4MB memory page sizes rather than 4KB memory
> pages? If so, I suspect that Performance Monitor is showing incorrect
> information. I am running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Windows 2003 x64, total
> page file size for all drives is configured at 3124MB, yet Task
> Manager reports that PF usage is 13.3GB. In my case, system
> performance is great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent
> numbers.
>
> Have you verified that the page file is actually 10GB in size?
>
> Charles Hooper
> IT Manager/Oracle DBA
> K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

Apart from that useful bit of advice, be warned that 64-bit Oracle on
64-bit Windows 2003 that runs on AMD processors will experience a
massive performance hit as memory starts paging maniacally once total
memory consumption hits about 12.8GB. It's a known bug, there's a TAR
out on it, it's allegedly fixed in 10.2.0.3 (not yet tested, however),
and it only affects AMD processor platforms.

Might not have any relevance to the OP, but I thought I'd mention it
just in case...

On Aug 9, 6:14 pm, "Paul Linehan" <plinehan__A@T__yahoo__D.OT__COM>
wrote:
> Charles Hooper wrote:
> > Have you enabled large page support on Windows and Oracle, which
> > causes Windows to use 4MB memory page sizes rather than 4KB memory
> > pages? If so, I suspect that Performance Monitor is showing incorrect
> > information. I am running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Windows 2003 x64, total
> > page file size for all drives is configured at 3124MB, yet Task
> > Manager reports that PF usage is 13.3GB. In my case, system
> > performance is great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent
> > numbers.
> > Have you verified that the page file is actually 10GB in size?
>
> I have read quite a few of your posts and I think
> that:
>
> a) you know what you're talking about
>
> and
>
> b) you genuinely try to help people.
>
> I hope that this info can help you and/or others.
>
> For Windows, there is a nifty/cool/rad/awesome(for Yanks
> only) - (choose term which hasn't gone out of fashion, or
> better yet, the one which has come back into fashion!!)
>
> Go towww.sysinternals.comand go for procexp (process
> explorer).exe - it gives more reliable results than
> the Windows performance monitor.
>
> Inconsistent numbers should not happen. The site also
> has a number of other useful bits and bobs for anyone
> concerned with performance.
>
> Paul...

Thanks for the suggestion - I have not experimented with that utility
in quite a while.

Looking at the page file on the hard drive, it is currently at
3,199,488KB, with an upper limit hard coded at 4,092MB (4,190,208KB).

Process Explorer:
Commit: 13.6GB (roughly 14,260,634KB)
Commit charge current: 14,254,748KB
Commit charge peak: 18,208,828KB

(recorded roughly 60 seconds after the above)
Task Manager:
PF Usage: 13.5GB (roughly 14,155,776KB)
Commit charge total: 14,258,808KB
Commit charge peak: 18,208,828KB
Physical memory total: 16,772,124KB
" " available: 3,798,000KB

Comparing the numbers between Process Explorer (now a Microsoft
product) and Task Manager on Windows 2003 x64 are very consistently
inconsistent.
16,772,124KB
- 3,798,000KB
-------------
12,974,124KB physical memory in use
+14,254,748KB page file in use
-------------
27,228,872KB total memory usage

-or-

12,974,124KB physical memory in use
+ 3,199,488KB actual page file size
-------------
16,173,612KB total memory usage

I *suspect* that the problem has to do with the memory page size being
4096KB for applications using large page support, rather than the
expected 4KB memory page size. There is probably a bit of code in
Windows that does not yet recognize the change (this is a new feature
for Windows), either that or Microsoft should patent the approach of
jamming 14,254,748KB of data into a 3,199,488KB file. :-)

Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

On Aug 10, 3:00 am, hjr.pyth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:09 pm, Charles Hooper <hooperc2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Have you enabled large page support on Windows and Oracle, which
> > causes Windows to use 4MB memory page sizes rather than 4KB memory
> > pages? If so, I suspect that Performance Monitor is showing incorrect
> > information. I am running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Windows 2003 x64, total
> > page file size for all drives is configured at 3124MB, yet Task
> > Manager reports that PF usage is 13.3GB. In my case, system
> > performance is great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent
> > numbers.
>
> > Have you verified that the page file is actually 10GB in size?
>
> > Charles Hooper
> > IT Manager/Oracle DBA
> > K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
>
> Apart from that useful bit of advice, be warned that 64-bit Oracle on
> 64-bit Windows 2003 that runs on AMD processors will experience a
> massive performance hit as memory starts paging maniacally once total
> memory consumption hits about 12.8GB. It's a known bug, there's a TAR
> out on it, it's allegedly fixed in 10.2.0.3 (not yet tested, however),
> and it only affects AMD processor platforms.
>
> Might not have any relevance to the OP, but I thought I'd mention it
> just in case...

Thanks for posting the above. Interesting - I wonder if this issue/
inconsistency is a bit more widespread/different than Oracle
believes. My servers have Intel processors. System performance is
great, so I am not too concerned about the inconsistent numbers. But,
if there is a real problem...

Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.