Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Oracle 10g on Windows 2003 x64 Memory Useage
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Charles Hooper  
View profile  
 More options Aug 10 2007, 7:28 am
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
From: Charles Hooper <hooperc2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:28:46 -0700
Local: Fri, Aug 10 2007 7:28 am
Subject: Re: Oracle 10g on Windows 2003 x64 Memory Useage
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.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.