32 bit oracle on Solaris 9 64 bits ?
Guy Dallaire
64 bits mode,
which I think is the default when you install (Can anyone confirm this ?)
Should I run oracle 64 bits edition on it, or would oracle 32 bits edition
run just fine ?
I heard that the 64 bit edition was slower and I don't need a HUGE SGA, and
I will probably
have older 32 bit oracle OCI apps running that I cannot recompile.
Is there a HUGE performance penalty in running 32 bits apps on solaris 64
bits ?
Thanks
Sean Chang
> I just bought a new sun server (280R) and I plan to run solaris 9 on it in
> 64 bits mode,
> which I think is the default when you install (Can anyone confirm this ?)
Yes, 64-bit is the default. You should never change to 32 bit OS
>
> Should I run oracle 64 bits edition on it, or would oracle 32 bits edition
> run just fine ?
We run an Oracle DB of 32 bits in 64-bits Solaris (8 ,9) for more
than 2 years now. Performace is good, also very stable.
> I heard that the 64 bit edition was slower and I don't need a HUGE SGA,
and
> I will probably
> have older 32 bit oracle OCI apps running that I cannot recompile.
>
> Is there a HUGE performance penalty in running 32 bits apps on solaris 64
> bits ?>
Don't know that becuase I have no comparisons.
sean chang
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Joel Garry
> Comments inline.
>
> > I just bought a new sun server (280R) and I plan to run solaris 9 on it in
> > 64 bits mode,
> > which I think is the default when you install (Can anyone confirm this ?)
>
> Yes, 64-bit is the default. You should never change to 32 bit OS
>
>
>
> >
> > Should I run oracle 64 bits edition on it, or would oracle 32 bits edition
> > run just fine ?
>
> We run an Oracle DB of 32 bits in 64-bits Solaris (8 ,9) for more
> than 2 years now. Performace is good, also very stable.
>
>
> > I heard that the 64 bit edition was slower and I don't need a HUGE SGA,
> and
> > I will probably
> > have older 32 bit oracle OCI apps running that I cannot recompile.
Oooh, scary Halloween! :-O
They are supposed to work, but those shared libraries... you just
never know until you try. Hopefully it will only be an issue when
recompiling.
> >
> > Is there a HUGE performance penalty in running 32 bits apps on solaris 64
> > bits ?>
> Don't know that becuase I have no comparisons.
http://www.sun.com/sun-on-net/itworld/UIR951101perf.html
Metalink Note:107201.1 says "32-bit databases run on systems with a
small number of 32-bit CPUs (4-6) may see some degradation in
performance if moved to 64-bit systems also with a small number of
64-bit CPUs.
Applications will achieve the benefits of improved scalability on-64
bit machine only if they are memory intensive. 64-bit applications
have bigger data structures because memory has to be addressed with a
larger number of bits. Larger data structures translate into
addtional memory requirements per process.
...
When running 32-bit Oracle binaries on a 64-bit machine, you will have
to set SHMMAX to 1GB exactly. This is an important requirement when
you want to extend the SGA beyond the 1GB. "
Note that you can have a huge SGA with 64-bit, if you can afford the
physical memory and checkpointing penalties. The general idea is that
not having to go to disk is an advantage over the penalties. For the
same init.ora configuration, 64 bits will need more physical memory.
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=209766.1
Watch the Oracle certification matrix for bit availability when
upgrading.
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=62290.1
My general bias is spring for the physical memory and run 64 bit,
since most businesses eventually want to calculate things. And don't
run unsupported software that has no ability to recompile/reinstall.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/31/HNmsgoogle_1.html
Guy Dallaire
"Joel Garry" <joel-...@home.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:91884734.03103...@posting.google.com...