On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:45:21AM -0400, mcelroy, tim wrote:
>Thanks Michael. Are you saying the 'used' column is the irrelevant number?
>Is the number that is more pertinent is 1416880? Is that the actual amount
>of memory in use?
Yes.
>I agree about the allocation of a bogus amount of memory
>but the issue occurred after-hours when the application(s) were not running.
>Or are you saying the app whacked the DB during the day and never recovered?
I have no idea why the bogus memory allocation happened. If it continues
to happen you might have data corruption on disk. If it never happens
again, it could have been cosmic rays.
Mike Stone