IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Databases Forum / hmm they look ok
Post #49,076
by boxley
8/12/02 12:58:04 PM
Reply
New hmm they look ok
I would kick up "set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1000" to 2000 and here is the reference manual on those settings.
[link|http://docs.sun.com/?p=/doc/806-7009/6jftnqsj7&a=view|link]
thanx,
bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #49,114
by broomberg
8/12/02 7:50:19 PM
Reply
New Why?
* SEMMNS Set to the sum of the PROCESSES parameter for each Oracle
* database, adding the largest one twice, then add an additional 10 for each
* database. See "Configure the UNIX Kernel for Oracle8i" for an example of this
* formula.
*
Single Oracle instance, 150 max
processes, more likely I'm using 40
of them, with only 7 of them being
the shadow processes for my code.
Post #49,118
by a6l6e6x
Picture of a6l6e6x
8/12/02 8:08:40 PM
Reply
New Don't guesstimate, get actual count.
Assumptions are sometimes wrong. :)
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Post #49,124
by broomberg
8/12/02 8:45:26 PM
Reply
New Good point
And now you have me thinking.

I bet I max out on parallel query
slaves. I'll look into it.
Post #49,128
by broomberg
8/12/02 9:09:39 PM
Reply
New Nah, not even close
This process doesn't paralleize since
I restrict each to a specific paritition.

Here are ALL the oracle processes running
(other than shells) when I have 6 going
at the same time:

oracle 18883 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:01 ora_smon_aig4
oracle 18875 1 0 19:21:18 ? 0:00 ora_pmon_aig4
oracle 18899 1 0 19:21:33 ? 0:00 /u01/app/oracle/product/9.2.0/bin/tnslsnr LISTENER -inherit
oracle 19120 1 8 20:54:58 ? 4:01 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 18889 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_d000_aig4
oracle 19153 1 9 20:56:54 ? 2:56 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 18893 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_d002_aig4
broom 19243 19241 0 21:04:15 pts/29 0:00 grep ora
oracle 19167 1 8 21:00:09 ? 1:44 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 18879 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_lgwr_aig4
oracle 19232 1 3 21:04:05 ? 0:03 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 18891 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_d001_aig4
oracle 19206 1 8 21:02:13 ? 0:43 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 19219 1 7 21:03:17 ? 0:18 oracleaig4 (LOCAL=NO)
oracle 18881 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_ckpt_aig4
oracle 18887 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_s000_aig4
oracle 18877 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_dbw0_aig4
oracle 18885 1 0 19:21:19 ? 0:00 ora_reco_aig4
     Tuning crazies - (broomberg) - (25) - Aug. 8, 2002, 12:05:29 AM EDT
         Tuning... a few suggestions - (folkert) - (4) - Aug. 8, 2002, 10:53:50 PM EDT
             Thanks - (broomberg) - Aug. 9, 2002, 08:24:16 PM EDT
             Reread - (broomberg) - (2) - Aug. 9, 2002, 08:46:55 PM EDT
                 Just did the re-read... - (folkert) - (1) - Aug. 10, 2002, 11:12:28 AM EDT
                     Gut feel is Oracle - (broomberg) - Aug. 10, 2002, 11:02:13 PM EDT
         what is your /etc/system file look like on the sun - (boxley) - (6) - Aug. 12, 2002, 10:10:51 AM EDT
             Oracle params: - (broomberg) - (5) - Aug. 12, 2002, 11:10:44 AM EDT
                 hmm they look ok - (boxley) - (4) - Aug. 12, 2002, 12:58:04 PM EDT
                     Why? - (broomberg) - (3) - Aug. 12, 2002, 07:50:19 PM EDT
                         Don't guesstimate, get actual count. - (a6l6e6x) - (2) - Aug. 12, 2002, 08:08:40 PM EDT
                             Good point - (broomberg) - (1) - Aug. 12, 2002, 08:45:26 PM EDT
                                 Nah, not even close - (broomberg) - Aug. 12, 2002, 09:09:39 PM EDT
         I think I got it - (broomberg) - (12) - Sept. 8, 2002, 04:35:48 PM EDT
             ooh ooh ooh I know!!!!! - (boxley) - (11) - Sept. 8, 2002, 10:16:11 PM EDT
                 No locking - (broomberg) - (10) - Sept. 9, 2002, 01:27:20 PM EDT
                     yer locking via nfs - (boxley) - (9) - Sept. 9, 2002, 06:48:07 PM EDT
                         I'm confused - (broomberg) - (8) - Sept. 9, 2002, 07:22:48 PM EDT
                             yer right but lockd isnt running on linux - (boxley) - (7) - Sept. 9, 2002, 09:15:23 PM EDT
                                 Yup, my issue - (broomberg) - (6) - Sept. 9, 2002, 11:22:10 PM EDT
                                     Piece o'crap Dell Dual Xeon - (broomberg) - (5) - Sept. 10, 2002, 12:00:39 PM EDT
                                         Re: Piece o'crap Dell Dual Xeon - (folkert) - (4) - Sept. 10, 2002, 03:57:33 PM EDT
                                             I knew I was throwing you a bone - (broomberg) - (3) - Sept. 10, 2002, 09:07:00 PM EDT
                                                 Mmmmmmmmm... Tasty! -NT - (folkert) - (2) - Sept. 10, 2002, 09:28:23 PM EDT
                                                     Update - (broomberg) - (1) - Sept. 11, 2002, 07:12:45 PM EDT
                                                         Good to know... - (folkert) - Sept. 11, 2002, 08:25:23 PM EDT

Bring me more whiskey and rye!
92 ms