Solaris is using more memory than other node

Hi, experts
I running Oracle RAC , with 6 instances per node in Oracle RAC 10.2.0.3.0 Solaris 5.10 x86-64 32 Gb RAM and 4 processors core 2 dual
Each instance is configured with
dbprd1 = 2.5 gb
dbprd2 = 2.5 gb
dbprd3 = 2.5 gb
dbprd4 = 1.5 gb
dbprep1 = 500
dbprep2 = 500
TOTAL = 10G
But, when I use the top command, I get the follow
[oracle@oraoltppub01:backup]$ top | grep "Memory"
Memory: 32G phys mem, 14G free mem, 68G swap, 68G free swap
[oracle@oraoltppub02:dbprd4]$ top | grep "Memory"
Memory: 32G phys mem, 1334M free mem, 68G total swap, 68G free swap
On server oraoltppub01 I have 14Gb free of memory, but on server oraoltppu02 I have 1334Mb free of memory
Why is happening ?
The follow parameters is setting for both servers.
* Parmetros para o banco de dados ORACLE ###
* IPC shared memory
set noexec_user_stack=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=25769803776
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=256
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=2000
* IPC semaphores
set semsys:seminfo_semmap=256
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=4096
set semsys:seminfo_semume=64
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=256
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=100
set semsys:seminfo_semvmx=32767
set semsys:seminfo_semaem=16384
* IPC message
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=2048
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=16384
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=50
set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=32
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=2048
set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=32767
#set noexec_user_stack=1
#set udp:xmit_hiwat=65536
#set udp:udp_recv_hiwat=65536
#set udp:xmit_hiwat=65536
#set udp:udp_recv_hiwat=65536
Do I need to do some kernel configuration?

Memory is not fixed for Oracle. You do not assign x GB of RAM to Oracle and the database will only use that much and no more.
The Oracle database engine consists of a number of processes. Each of these need a data segment. Each data segment (private process memory) can grow and shrink. And these data segments do not form part of the x GB of RAM that was assigned to Oracle's SGA (shared memory).
The number of these processes differ from instance to instance. There are management processes that Oracle will run from time to time. There is a job processing pool, a shared server processing pool and a parallel query processing pool. These can also grow and shrink. And on an instance running several jobs (and one that uses PQ processing), there will be more running processes than on another instances. Thus more private process memory will be used and less free server memory will be available on that server.
A single dedicated server process (created by the Listener to service a client connection) can also consume all available server memory - by running poorly designed and written PL/SQL bulk processing code that results in the private process memory of that dedicated process to continually grow. Hopefully this is not the case - but the fact is that a single server process can consume all available free server memory and more.
As the number of processes differ from RAC instance to RAC instance, it is the norm to see different amounts of memory utilisation on RAC nodes. Memory utilisation depends on the processing that RAC instance is currently doing.

Similar Messages

  • Can oracle use more memory than pga+sga

    Hi Experts,
    If I have set pga 1GB and SGA 2GB then Could oracle use more than 3GB RAM from OS.
    Thanks,
    Please Ignore if seems to be very basic question..

    Yes.
    The PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET is only a target. On a busy system, a system with frequently changing SQL patterns , Oracle may sometimes attempt to allocate a higher value.
    I presume that you are on 32-bit Windows. You will hit ORA-4030 errors occassionally because Oracle on Windows is a single process (multi-threaded) and Windows limits the memory the process can address.
    I suggest that you reduce your P_A_T.
    Hemant K Chitale

  • Exchange 2013 - The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the configured threshold

    Noticed at about noon that no emails had been received all day. Began to investigate and found that the MS Exchange Transport service had been set to deny email submission because it was using too much memory on the server (91%). 
    The error message makes me think that we may have been getting used by malware or something similar.“The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the
    configured threshold.” 
    There are also several warning messages that list particular IP addresses and say that a connection from that IP was denied because there were already the maximum number of connections (20). 
    From what I can tell, all of the IP addresses are from Taiwan. 
    The time period for which some emails may be missing is from close of business yesterday ( 4/3/2014) through about 12:45 today (4/4/2014). 
    From the time I spent reading and trying to figure out the error, I think we may need to readjust our throttling policies to prevent this from happening. 
    The exchange server is currently running at 90%+ CPU and 50%+ memory usage the majority of the time, and I’m not sure how to fix it.
    Also, I cannot get into EMS I get a access denied message from the destination computer. (Exchange server) I want to get into there to change the throttling policy back to default, since we disabled it.
    The Error reads:
    The WinRM client cannot process the request. The WinRM client tried to use Kerberos authentication mechanism, but the destination computer <Exchange> returned an 'access denied' error. Change the configuration to allow Kerberos authentication
    mechanism to be used or specify one of the authentication mechanism supported by the server. (How do I do this?) To use Kerberos, specify the local computer name as the remote destination. (I'm trying to use EMS while logged into the local Exchange server)
    Also verify that the client computer and the destination computer are joined to a domain. (Exchange is on our domain, and the computer trying to connect is the same computer) To use basic, specify the local computer name as the remote destination, specify
    Basic authentication and provide user mane and password. Possible authentication mechanisms reported by server.
    At line:1 char:1
    + New-PSSession -ConnectionURI "$connectionUri" -ConfigurationName Microsoft.Excha ...
    + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        + CategoryInfo          : OpenError: (System.Manageme....RemoteRunspace:RemoteRunspace) [New-PSSession], PSRemotingTransportException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : AccessDenied,PSSessionOpenFailed
    I assumed control of this exchange system already in place and I do not have much experience with exchange 2013 or server 2012. I do know 2008, but that doesn't help very much in this situation.
    Recent changes to the system:
    About three days ago we switch our sessions policy to allow many more connections, and I believe this caused the issue. This is what I changed it to:
    Made the registry DWORD (32-bit) "Maximum Allowed Sessions Per User" and modified the value to 1000. Location of registry change @ HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeIS\ParametersSystem
    I just changed it to 10 from the 1000. I'm hoping this solves this. So far no.
    Also, I am not the best in the shell or command line interfaces. Any help would be wonderful!

    Hi,
    Yes, could be hardware performance issue. Try recycle the Transport process and see if the issue persists.
    Thanks,
    Simon Wu
    TechNet Community Support

  • Web Process + Safari now hogging 50-75% more memory than Safari 5.0.5 did

    Now that Apple has split Safari into two processes — Web Process (handles page loads and other traffic) and Safari (handles interface, bookmarks, history, etc) — these two processes together are using 50% to 75% more memory than Safari did before the upgrade to 5.1.
    Three days ago, the most RAM I'd ever seen Safari hog (after several hours of surfing multiple tabs) was 1.1GB (still way more than it needed, once back down to 3 or 4 tabs).
    Today, after surfing only an hour:
    WebProcess 1.3GB
    Safari           552MB
    Anyone else seeing this? And anyone have ideas about limiting this memory hogging?

    Well, to add a little more frustraton to this thread, a few weeks ago, when I first saw all the bugginess with this "update", I called Apple, was handed up to a higher-level tech person. He told me they were aware of all these problems, and promised me a fix would be released "ASAP".  Well, a few weeks later, & of course, no fix. About a week ago, I called again, & was handed to a different higher-level guy, but this time he gave the same tired, "you should disable all your extensions & plug-ins" blah, blah, blah...   And worse, he told me that he's heard nothing from users about issues with Safari!!!
    Well, I then asked him if the problem really was one or some of the add-ons, why couldn't Apple just give us a list of at least some of the more popular ones that don't work. Why should ever single user have to go thru a one by one, trial & error, add one, then restart, then another, etc, since Apple could just do it, & let us know. Of course, that's never happened, so everyone has been trying anything they can, &/or resorting to using other browsers, & posting here & other places. I sure hope Apple quits stonewalling everyone, you would think they would address this, either by fixing it quickly, or at least letting everyone know they are aware of it, and that a fix will be coming, but pretending they no see, no hear nothing, and it's all in our heads, well, ...... it shucks.

  • Firefox 7.0.1 consumes more memory than just FF 7.0!

    You have got to be kidding me, Mozilla! You claimed that Firefox 7.0 would consume less memory than its predecessors. Well, FF7.0 does consume less memory, but when I upgraded to Firefox 7.0.1 and used the browser, it now consumes MORE memory than FF7.0 did before, and it is now at nearly 300,000 KB to nearly 500,000 KB! And that was on my first use! The second or other times I used it, Firefox 7.0.1 only consumes less memory, than the first time I used the browser! Mozilla, when will you wise up and fix the memory leaks again?

    That is nothing, my Firefox 7.0.1 consumes 2.47GB (2 473 805 KB to be exact) ram with just 2 open tabs...
    My system is with 8GB ram and I'm running out of memory...
    Most of the time when I browse, the pages load slowly, firefox freezes during scrolling (and assortment of other problems)

  • Does tethering my iPad to my iPhone 4s use more data than using an iPad that has its own data plan?

    Does tethering my iPad to my iPhone 4s use more data than using an iPad that has it's own data plan?

    No, it won't work.. the Airports are not media devices.. they have no brains .. no media extensions.. and itunes must be running on a computer.
    You can however watch movies from storage but not with itunes..
    See how people use tools like VLC to get around Apple's built in iTunes limitations.
    http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
    https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/vlc-streamer/id410031728?mt=8

  • Firevault: "Your homefolder is using more space than required"

    I would like to ask for some help. After every log-out, Firevault tells me that "Your homefolder is using more space than required" (or something between that lines). What can I do?
    Thank you for the help.

    Hi Morales,
    Unless you have a need for military-level security, FileVault is overkill. It slows your computer because all sorts of cache and preference files are repeatedly encrypted and decrypted, and because filevault is saving all your files in a big "container file," disk and directory errors that would otherwise be minor can cause massive data loss on a filevault-ed computer.
    To keep SOME files secure, an encrypted, password protected disk image is a better idea. You can make encrypted disk images with Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility. Do File > New > Disk Image from Folder.
    John

  • Force Premiere Pro to Use More Memory

    Hello
    Is there any way to force Premiere Pro to use more memory on a macbook pro?
    I've got 8gb, but it's maxing out at 2gb....still have almost 4gb free not being used.
    In my memory preference, I have 6 GB set to share between Premiere Pro and the encoder.
    Thanks
    Noel

    It may be that that is all the memory that is needed for the current tasks. Consider that even when your system is working hard, it may not be the RAM the is the bottleneck. It may be that the hard disks, the buses, the CPUs, or the GPU is where the resources are maxed out.
    See this page for resources about Adobe Premiere Pro and performance.

  • MBP Memory Upgrade Using More RAM than Before

    Hey,
    I have a 13-inch, late 2011 Macbook Pro with a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 Processor. I recently changed my 4GB memory (2 modules) PC3-10600 DDR3 1333 MHz to a Crucial 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1333 MHz.
    Before the upgrade, the activity monitor would show memory used at around 3.98GB or so, and I was running only chrome with a few tabs open. Using chrome and a few more apps would slow down the computer significantly, though still usable.
    After the upgrade, the activity monitor shows memory used at around 6.5GB with the same apps running (just chrome). My computer does run a faster and can handle a lot more apps.
    My question is, why is my Macbook using more RAM after the upgrade?
    Thanks,
    Sebs

    The short answer is that memory unused is memory wasted.
    Mavericks is designed to decrease reliance upon mass storage, which is orders of magnitude slower than RAM. Mavericks will use all the memory available to it before resorting to using the swapfile. You are likely to find "swap used" to be zero, even with Google Chrome's notoriously profligate use of system resources.
    Read: OS X Mavericks: About Activity Monitor

  • 5.0 RC: slower and uses more memory

    So far, I can't approve the promise of JDK 5.0 (RC): it is not only slower but also takes up more memory! Startup time is also the same compared to 1.4.2_05.
    I tested with a server application running the same task several times in sequence. The task does a little JDBC access, some calculations and some heavy XML processing and FOP generating. I checked it twice but running the server with the 5.0 RC server HotSpot took considerably longer than with the 1.4.2_05 server HotSpot VM: 10 - 30 % longer!!! As I log memory usage after each task, the 5.0 test also showed slightly more memory used than the 1.4.2_05 version. (On Windows 2000 computer)
    I wonder if this is a joke from Sun or if the RC is not optimized/has debug code enabled???

    I hope that the final version could ship better optimized than the RC version - it's very slow even in a Pentium 4 machine. Is there any debug info left in jvm.dll anymore?
    They even use Intel's VTune profiler (you can check such affirmation by reading J2SE SDK 1.4 SCSL Source code) but apparently they use the good old Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 compiler, instead of using Intel's C++ 7.X Optimizing Compiler. (Use the following options for getting a hotspot.log file that gives you a lot of informations about compiling: java -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+LogCompilation ) The Intel's compiler could speed up the JIT compiler speed and the interpreted code speed. (Well, I never tried to compile SCSL code with Intel's C++ compiler and check my assertion...)
    Excerpt from hotspot.log
    <info>
    Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (1.5.0-rc-b63) for windows-x86, built on Aug 11 2004
    03:18:38 by "java_re" with MS VC++ 6.0
    </info>

  • Sims 3 configure to use more memory

    HI,
    I have a MBP (mid 2012) with 8GB and 500hdd running Yosemite.
    I understand there is a way to configure SIMS 3 to use more than the default of 2gb of memory?
    How do I configure SIMS 3 to use 4gb instead of 2gb.
    Thanks in anticipation.........

    It may be that that is all the memory that is needed for the current tasks. Consider that even when your system is working hard, it may not be the RAM the is the bottleneck. It may be that the hard disks, the buses, the CPUs, or the GPU is where the resources are maxed out.
    See this page for resources about Adobe Premiere Pro and performance.

  • Frequent request to use more memory

    I often am asked for permission for the site to use more (Safari) memory.  It's annoying.  What can I do to elimintae this annoyance?  I've set "database storage" to 50 meg but the popup message thinks I have much less.
    Mac OS10.5.8  I believe I have the latest update for the player as well.

    It may be that that is all the memory that is needed for the current tasks. Consider that even when your system is working hard, it may not be the RAM the is the bottleneck. It may be that the hard disks, the buses, the CPUs, or the GPU is where the resources are maxed out.
    See this page for resources about Adobe Premiere Pro and performance.

  • Why does using AIFF Encoder use more space than original CD?

    I import with the AIFF Encoder option, as I want the best possible sound quality. A Full CD uses 700 MB, yet when I import a full CD into itunes, it says that is is using more than 800 MB. How is this possible?

    Using the AIFF/Apple Lossless encoder is different to using CDA or MP3 format.
    This is like a comparison between digital and analogue.
    Digital is about space efficiency - so, look at a CD - It's small right?
    This is because they have only taken sounds within a narrower band-width than the band-width used on a record (vinyl) and they have also encoded it (it's like shortening 'male' to 'm' under sex)
    Vinyl has a huge band-width (just compare a full-sized record to a CD) and takes every little detail of a song, every rich sound and keeps it as a value on its' surface.
    This is the same as the AIFF of Apple Lossless format - they take every little sound and put it inside the file - which makes it high quality but huge!
    I have compared sizes and AIFF of the same file is 10 times the size of the AAC.
    The digital formats use maths equations rather than on/off values for sounds.
    I would not use this format (AIFF or Apple Lossless) unless you were transferring from vinyl to your iPod and you didn't want much else because it is full of on/off values.
    CD's have reduced quality of sound and downloads are limited to the speed of the servers for quality BUT if you still want good quality and small size, encode in AAC - It is better than an MP3 because AAC is 4 layers of maths instead of 3 layers in an MP3.
    Remember though, there is no point in making a high quality file from a lower quality source - you are just filling your iPod with no noise!

  • WHy does Plug-in -contianter use 1-1/ times more memory than FF itself

    So rather than help me fix my problems with 3.6 which was working fine except for a little thing I moved ups to 11.2 because it was suppose to be so much better. Well now Plug-in -container is using nearly 1/2 gig of memory and climbing. FF is using300K. I'm not a gamer. Best i do is YouTube.
    So can i disable the plug in and somebody remind me how i did that in 3.6. You go into :about:config" right. Then What :)

    Basically "plugin-container" is nothing more than a place for plugins such as Flash, quicktime, etc. to sit. That way if they crash, instead of bringing down the Firefox window, just the plugin crashes. So, if you get high memory usage in the plugin-container, it is the fault of those plugins. You could disable the process, but that would just make the Firefox.exe process use that much more RAM.
    What you can try doing is this:
    Alot of things nowadays are hardware accelerated, which means they try to use your graphics card to help speed things up. Try updating your graphics driver (Firefox uses your graphics card for some rendering, and an out of date graphics card driver can cause problems. [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers].
    Also, some extensions can cause problems with memory usage as well. Type "About:addons" (without the quotes) in the address bar. Disable your extensions one by one, restarting Firefox between each one, until you find the trouble maker. Once you do, you can disable that add-on.

  • Does Tiger use a lot more memory than Panther

    Hopefully this is my last question before I upgrade. I dont know if I want to do it if Tiger is not as efficient.

    My sister has an older iMac with basically the same processor you have. You actually have two processors. Her iMac has 768mb of ram. She is running 10.4.5 and everything operates just fine.
    One thing I noticed is with Dashboard, even though the Widgets are not actively displayed on the desktop they still will access the processors, and can slow your machine down. You can check this with Activity Monitor. If you are going to do processor intensive tasks, close all widgets, or there is now a widget which will allow you to quit the Dashboard, this will disable all widgets. Also some widgets will access the internet intermittently (news feeds, weather maps and many others) if you have dial-up internet and again if the widgets are not closed, these will impact the speed of your browser and downloads.
    For myself, Tiger has been extremely stable and have not had a single crash of the operating system. I upgraded last May so almost one year.
    hope this helps

Maybe you are looking for