[lug] SHMMAX

[John Starkey]

Thanks Jason. After I recieved this I went ahead and moved
everything to another box with 6 mem slots and managed to get 132 megs.
It's only a 150mHz processor so I may defeat the purpose. Ever switch proc
chips? I'm wondering about the compat issues. 

TIA.

John

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Jason Packer/Boulder/Contr/IBM wrote:

> 
> I have no idea just how big this database is, but you're gonna NEED more
> memory than that.  The last Oracle installation I worked on was using about
> 30 gigs for their database on a Sun Enterprise 450 (dual 450MHz processors)
> with a gig of RAM.
> 
> As in all intense processes like this, more is better.
> 
>           Jason
> 
> 
> 
> John Starkey <jstarkey at ajstarkey.com>@lug.boulder.co.us on 08/13/2000
> 09:44:18 AM
> 
> Please respond to lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> 
> Sent by:  lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us
> 
> 
> To:   lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> cc:
> Subject:  [lug] SHMMAX
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I was wrong about Oracle. It wasn't the install that chewed the
> memory. It's the actual DB creation. After 12 hours the meter went from 0%
> to 1% complete, with 64megs int.
> 
> I just checked ipcs and there are no entries. Is it possible that by
> changing these settings (SHMMAX, SHMMNI, SHMSEG) that I could atleast
> speed this thing up so it'll finish in a day?
> 
> I have no idea what I'm talking about here. Is this something that a
> newbie can totally trash the machine by changing? The HP I'm installing on
> only has one RAM slot open and I only have 32 meg DIMMs. So I'm not sure
> that much more will do any good considering> I also really don't wanna
> tear another machine apart for this.
> 
> 
> TIA,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>