2GB limit of memory for Oracle on WIndows 32 bit

[Database Administrator]

> Why is it that nowadays IT personell doesn't have a clue about the
> underlying technology?

You can blame that on the colleges/universities/tech schools. It seems
like all of the above are trying to teach the latest and greatest
technologies without teaching the fundamental building blocks. And I
think this shows in many recent graduates (not all of them though).

Not too many years ago, I taught a Data Structures class at a local
college. The prerequisite was Programming I and Programming II. To a
person...each student informed me that they did not know how to write a
program from scratch. Their instructor had always provided them a
partial program and they just filled in the blanks. This floored me and
I knew it was time to get out of the teaching business (no offense
Daniel).

Just my 2 cents...
Brian



--
================================================== =================

Brian Peasland
dba@nospam.peasland.net
http://www.peasland.net

Remove the "nospam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good.
Now pick two out of the three" - Unknown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Database Administrator]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> and applications. Each 32-bit application can access up to 2 GB of
> addressable memory space, which is large enough to support even the
> largest desktop application.

L'histoire se repete... Didn't I hear something similar on the
640kB address model?

Apart from this being utterly nonsense, of course. AutoCAD, anyone?
- --
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFGhWZzLw8L4IAs830RAlNZAKCcOFOy6DYaGOBxZsrc3w 9CGsIoYACgiN17
lf8yyf51IOFB/IGb1DdVNpc=
=wLCA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Database Administrator]

On Jun 27, 12:01 pm, BD wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I am on Windows 2000 server and usng Oracle 9.2.0.6. I know 32 bit
> > Oracle has limit of 2GB memory. I have 5 Oracle database instances, so
> > I see 5 oracle.exe in task manager. I am assuming each oracle.exe can
> > access up to 2GB memory, so up to 10GB memory can be used by Oracle on
> > the server.
>
> > Thanks a lot.
>
> No, not exactly. You have 2GB of memory for *all* of the Oracle
> requirements. It's gross.
>
> 3 ways of dealing with that limitation:
>
> 1: the /3GB switch in boot.ini: allows for 3GB to be made available to
> programs, with the kernel taking 1GB (could be repercussions there
> too)
>
> 2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.
>
> The /3GB and /PAE switches can be used together, but if they are, you
> will never see more than 16GB on the box, even if there's 64GB of
> physical memory installed. Just the way it works.
>
> 3: Use 64-Bit windows.
>
> BD

>>2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
>> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
>> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
>> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.

Is there any thing wrong is using /PAE switch and setting some
parameters in init.ora to put buffer pools in this address space.I
want to have large buffer pool so I can "pin" some tables in memory
using
recycle pool. In addition, increase size of my default buffer pool. I
have 8GB memory on the server, some of it wll betaken kernel and other
oracle parameters - PGA etc, bur rest I can use for buffer pools.

[Database Administrator]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:14:17 -0700, zigzagdna@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 27, 12:01 pm, BD wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > I am on Windows 2000 server and usng Oracle 9.2.0.6. I know 32 bit
>> > Oracle has limit of 2GB memory. I have 5 Oracle database instances, so
>> > I see 5 oracle.exe in task manager. I am assuming each oracle.exe can
>> > access up to 2GB memory, so up to 10GB memory can be used by Oracle on
>> > the server.
>>
>> > Thanks a lot.
>>
>> No, not exactly. You have 2GB of memory for *all* of the Oracle
>> requirements. It's gross.
>>
>> 3 ways of dealing with that limitation:
>>
>> 1: the /3GB switch in boot.ini: allows for 3GB to be made available to
>> programs, with the kernel taking 1GB (could be repercussions there
>> too)
>>
>> 2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
>> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
>> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
>> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.
>>
>> The /3GB and /PAE switches can be used together, but if they are, you
>> will never see more than 16GB on the box, even if there's 64GB of
>> physical memory installed. Just the way it works.
>>
>> 3: Use 64-Bit windows.
>>
>> BD
>
>>>2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
>>> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
>>> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
>>> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.
>
>Is there any thing wrong is using /PAE switch and setting some
>parameters in init.ora to put buffer pools in this address space.I
>want to have large buffer pool so I can "pin" some tables in memory
>using
>recycle pool. In addition, increase size of my default buffer pool. I
>have 8GB memory on the server, some of it wll betaken kernel and other
>oracle parameters - PGA etc, bur rest I can use for buffer pools.
>
>
>
Recycle pool does not *pin* tables in memory. Tables can be kept
longer in memory by using the *keep* pool (funny name isn't it, if you
think of it).

Apart from that cranking up the memory won't resolve your fundamental
problem: apparently you never tuned your application and now you want
to resolve that by throwing memory at the problem.
This method has been demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong over and
over again, and is one of the safest methods to end up in hell or at
the unemployment office.

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

[Database Administrator]

On Jul 1, 11:41 am, sybra...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:14:17 -0700, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 12:01 pm, BD wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > I am on Windows 2000 server and usng Oracle 9.2.0.6. I know 32 bit
> >> > Oracle has limit of 2GB memory. I have 5 Oracle database instances, so
> >> > I see 5 oracle.exe in task manager. I am assuming each oracle.exe can
> >> > access up to 2GB memory, so up to 10GB memory can be used by Oracle on
> >> > the server.
>
> >> > Thanks a lot.
>
> >> No, not exactly. You have 2GB of memory for *all* of the Oracle
> >> requirements. It's gross.
>
> >> 3 ways of dealing with that limitation:
>
> >> 1: the /3GB switch in boot.ini: allows for 3GB to be made available to
> >> programs, with the kernel taking 1GB (could be repercussions there
> >> too)
>
> >> 2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
> >> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
> >> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
> >> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.
>
> >> The /3GB and /PAE switches can be used together, but if they are, you
> >> will never see more than 16GB on the box, even if there's 64GB of
> >> physical memory installed. Just the way it works.
>
> >> 3: Use 64-Bit windows.
>
> >> BD
>
> >>>2: the /PAE switch in boot.ini: allows for use of upper memory
> >>> (anything above 4GB). Oracle needs to be configured to use this
> >>> memory, and this memory can only be used for the buffer cache. Shared
> >>> Pool, PGA, all the rest needs to sit in 'base' memory no matter what.
>
> >Is there any thing wrong is using /PAE switch and setting some
> >parameters in init.ora to put buffer pools in this address space.I
> >want to have large buffer pool so I can "pin" some tables in memory
> >using
> >recycle pool. In addition, increase size of my default buffer pool. I
> >have 8GB memory on the server, some of it wll betaken kernel and other
> >oracle parameters - PGA etc, bur rest I can use for buffer pools.
>
> Recycle pool does not *pin* tables in memory. Tables can be kept
> longer in memory by using the *keep* pool (funny name isn't it, if you
> think of it).
>
> Apart from that cranking up the memory won't resolve your fundamental
> problem: apparently you never tuned your application and now you want
> to resolve that by throwing memory at the problem.
> This method has been demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong over and
> over again, and is one of the safest methods to end up in hell or at
> the unemployment office.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

FYI, keep and recycle pools work exactly the same way. keep and
recycle are just the names given by Oracle. Vendor sells the
application, I cannot do any tuning of application.

[Database Administrator]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:37:23 -0700, zigzagdna@yahoo.com wrote:

>FYI, keep and recycle pools work exactly the same way. keep and
>recycle are just the names given by Oracle. Vendor sells the
>application, I cannot do any tuning of application.

Actually they don't. But as you don't even understand the virtual
memory concept I won't waste my time in explaining this further.
Obviously it is not true you cannot due any tuning of application, at
least you can identify the problem areas, and address those with
vendor.
But as you prefer the DKB method of 'tuning' nothing is going to be
resolved and you will end up in hell, where you deserve to be.

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

[Database Administrator]

On Jul 1, 5:04 pm, sybra...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:37:23 -0700, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >FYI, keep and recycle pools work exactly the same way. keep and
> >recycle are just the names given by Oracle. Vendor sells the
> >application, I cannot do any tuning of application.
>
> Actually they don't. But as you don't even understand the virtual
> memory concept I won't waste my time in explaining this further.
> Obviously it is not true you cannot due any tuning of application, at
> least you can identify the problem areas, and address those with
> vendor.
> But as you prefer the DKB method of 'tuning' nothing is going to be
> resolved and you will end up in hell, where you deserve to be.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

You do not have any understanding of keep and recycle pools at all.
Read Tom Kyte's web site or post a question there. Problem with you
is you have no idea of reality, if vendor could fix the problem, it
won't be an issue at all. In many compaines people get stuck with
whatever vendor provides, yet same time management wants to improve
performance, so all one can do from DBA's perspective is to figure how
to add more memory, more CPU's etc. That is reality. Many years ago, I
used to work in an environment where company's developemnt group will
develop all the applications and you can ask them to tume the
application without much problem, but that is not true in all the
shops.

Also, using WIDNOWS'S AWE one can go beyound 4GB. That was my original
question which you have
no undesratnding.

[Database Administrator]

On Jun 28, 5:56 pm, Charles Hooper wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:04 pm, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, sybra...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:42:07 -0700, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >When /3GB switch is turned on, will all oracle instances (5 in my
> > > >example) still have access only to 3GB memory combined or each
> > > >instance will have limit of 3GB memory. Various metalink articels say
> > > >this limit to be per instance so I am confused.
>
> > > They are discussing *virtual* memory, not *physical* memory. As soon
> > > as a system runs out of *physical* memory, it will swap memory it no
> > > longer needs to disk. When this memory is needed again it will be read
> > > from disk. This is called a page fault.
> > > A disk is a *slow* device.
> > > So, please, pray tell me, how desirable do you think it is to
> > > configure 3 Gb *per instance*?
>
> > > --
> > > Sybrand Bakker
> > > Senior Oracle DBA
>
> > If my server has 8GB physical meory, it will be nice to make use of
> > 8GB instead of restricted only to 3GB. I have seen
> > so many articles which talk about 3GB or 2GB per instance
> > restriction, but now I am told that is not correct, 3GB or 2GB
> > restriction is all instances combined, so it is confusing. Apparently
> > there is some restriction related to how much shared memory one can
> > allocate on Windows Server, otherwise each instance should be able to
> > address 2GB or 3GB (with /3GB switch).
>
> Google search:
> site:microsoft.com windows 2000 maximum memory
>
> Finds this web page:http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx
> "Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have
> always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space
> that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space
> is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible
> to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the
> Windows executive software.
>
> The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT
> Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first
> versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual
> address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1
> GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the
> availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP
> Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003."
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/lib...4(SQL.80).aspx
> "Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 provide a 4-gigabyte (GB) virtual
> address space at any time, the lower 2 GB of which is private per
> process and available for application use. The upper 2 GB is reserved
> for system use. Windows NT Server, Enterprise Edition provides a 4-GB
> virtual address space for each Microsoft Win32® application, the lower
> 3 GB of which is private per process and available for application
> use. The upper 1 GB is reserved for system use.
>
> The 4-GB address space is mapped to the available physical memory by
> Windows NT Virtual Memory Manager (VMM). The available physical memory
> can be up to 4 GB, depending on hardware platform support."
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178067.aspx
> "The 32-bit operating systems such as Windows 2000 and Windows Server
> 2003 provide access to 4-gigabyte (GB) of virtual address space. The
> lower 2 GB of virtual memory is private per process and available for
> application use. The upper 2 GB is reserved for operating system use.
> All operating system editions, starting with Microsoft Windows XP
> Professional and later, including Windows Server 2003, include a
> boot.ini switch that can provide applications with access to 3 GB of
> virtual memory, limiting the operating system to 1 GB. See your
> Windows documentation for more information on using the /3GB switch
> memory configuration."
>
> >From "Microsoft Windows 95 Resource Kit" paperback version (c)1995
>
> page 976-977:
> "Windows 95 addresses this issue by using the 32-bit capabilities of
> the 80386 (and above) processor architecture to support a flat, linear
> memory model for 32-bit operating system functionality and Win32-based
> applications. A linear addressing model simplifies the development
> process for application vendors, and removes the performance penalties
> imposed by the segmented memory architecture.
>
> With this addressing model, Windows 95 allows full use of the 4 GB of
> addressable memory space for all 32-bit operating system components
> and applications. Each 32-bit application can access up to 2 GB of
> addressable memory space, which is large enough to support even the
> largest desktop application.
>
> The Memory Pager maps virtual addresses from the process's address
> space to physical pages in the computer's memory. In doing so, it
> hides the physical organization of memory from the process's threads."
>
> Hopefully, the above clarifies how memory is allocated on 32 bit
> Windows, which seems to be consistent all the way back to 1995.
>
> Charles Hooper
> IT Manager/Oracle DBA
> K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another useful link:

http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive...29/363181.aspx

[Database Administrator]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:53:09 -0700, zigzagdna@yahoo.com wrote:

>Also, using WIDNOWS'S AWE one can go beyound 4GB. That was my original
>question which you have
>no undesratnding.

I'm not sure why you insist I don't understand the problem.
Actually it is *YOU* and *YOU ALONE*, who fails to understand it is
PURE MADNESS to run 5 databases on a single server and to crank up the
memory to 3 Gb for each of them, when there is ONLY 8 Gb physical
memory available.
You don't understand the virtual memory concept, and you really want
to apply the VOODOO concept of tuning to the server.

That shows you don't have ANY UNDERSTANDING OF VITAL IT CONCEPTS.
It also shows you DON'T DESERVE the name DBA, and you should be SHOWED
TO THE DOOR FIRST THING TOMORROW.

CRANK UP THAT MEMORY, AND NOTICE IT DOESN'T HELP, AT ALL.
I WILL GLADLY EXPLAIN TO YOUR BOSS WHY, AND RECOMMEND HE KICKS YOU
OuT.
YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY BETTER, YOU ARE BOTH INCOMPETENT AND ARROGANT
AND AN IDIOT.

--

[Database Administrator]

On Jul 1, 7:23 pm, sybra...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:53:09 -0700, zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Also, using WIDNOWS'S AWE one can go beyound 4GB. That was my original
> >question which you have
> >no undesratnding.
>
> I'm not sure why you insist I don't understand the problem.
> Actually it is *YOU* and *YOU ALONE*, who fails to understand it is
> PURE MADNESS to run 5 databases on a single server and to crank up the
> memory to 3 Gb for each of them, when there is ONLY 8 Gb physical
> memory available.
> You don't understand the virtual memory concept, and you really want
> to apply the VOODOO concept of tuning to the server.
>
> That shows you don't have ANY UNDERSTANDING OF VITAL IT CONCEPTS.
> It also shows you DON'T DESERVE the name DBA, and you should be SHOWED
> TO THE DOOR FIRST THING TOMORROW.
>
> CRANK UP THAT MEMORY, AND NOTICE IT DOESN'T HELP, AT ALL.
> I WILL GLADLY EXPLAIN TO YOUR BOSS WHY, AND RECOMMEND HE KICKS YOU
> OuT.
> YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY BETTER, YOU ARE BOTH INCOMPETENT AND ARROGANT
> AND AN IDIOT.
>
> --

You describe yourself very well:
"YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY BETTER, YOU ARE BOTH INCOMPETENT AND ARROGANT
AND AN IDIOT.:

Over and over again you show your arrogance and igonrarnce. It is
never too late to learn from others because you clearly have no
undersatdning of keep and recycle pools. What a shame.