| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> 8.0.5 to 8.0.6 wariness
Hello all,
We are running 8.0.5 on a production machine and would like to be able to replicate it. Due to a problem with some consultants, we have an 8.0.6 CD which we will use to install onto a local machine (we'll use this machine to replicate to the 8.0.5 production box). I'm wondering whether there are any caveats I should be worried about in doing so.
The intent at the beginning was to have the same OS and the same database on both ends for consistency, but this is no longer an option.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all.
Michael
From: "Charlie Mengler" <charliem_at_mwh.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:55:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Striping Disks
In my opinion you should ONLY stripe disks when you have or can achive 7+ separate volumes, and here is why. On a striped volume you (the DBA) lose all ability to control the "hot spots". In a striped volume Oracle only "sees" & reports activity against the single striped volume. You have NO way of identifying the cause of "hot spindle(s)" because you have no way of "mapping" what data physically resides on which physical volume. For myself I only use RAID-1 volumes.
HTH & YMMV!
Ashish Shah wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have 6 * 9 GB disks on Sun solaris. Any
> recomendations abouts how do I go about
> striping them for better I/O.
>
> Make sure you include redo,system,data,indx,arch,temp,
> and backup files..
>
> Should I strip all 6 disks equally and place files
> accross???
>
> Thanks.
>
> =====
> Ashish
> Toronto, Canada
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
> --
> Author: Ashish Shah
> INET: ar_shah_at_yahoo.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
-- Charlie Mengler Maintenance Warehouse charliem_at_mwh.com 5505 Morehouse Drive 858-552-6229 San Diego, CA 92121 Always be sincere about your enthusiasm, whether you mean it or not. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Orr" <sorr_at_arzoo.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:04:09 -0700 Subject: RE: Locally managed tablespaces Yup, it's 64K. Here's an excerpt from Steve Adams' website: "locally managed tablespaces have a 64K bitmap after the datafile header block." Check it out at: http://www.ixora.com.au/tips/creation/datafiles.htm Steve Orr -----Original Message----- From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Linda Wang Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:33 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Locally managed tablespaces Steve, We have 8.1.5 with db_block_size= 8K and all of tablespaces locally managed. I got these: SQL> select min(header_block)-1 from dba_segments where tablespace_name ='MF_DATA_1'; MIN(HEADER_BLOCK)-1 ------------------- 8 SQL> select min(header_block)-1 "Overhead" from dba_segments where tablespace_name='SYSTEM'; Overhead ---------- 1 So, I guess the overhead is 64K not 4 * db_block_size. -Linda -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:45 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Hi Madhaven, No. We didn't go locally managed until after 8.1.6. But I did encounter your same symptoms when I had only added one db block for overhead not knowing that I needed 4 with Veritas. When I extended the datafile for the overhead I was able to get the expected behavior. To double check the overhead requirement on a tablespace/datafile (with objects already created in it) you could do something like: select min(header_block)-1 from dba_segments where tablespace_name = <'WHATEVER'> ; My result was 4 and my db_block_size is 16K so I sized my datafile to be 1GB+64K or 1,048,640K. My extents were 131,072K (or 128M) so everything fit perfectly: (131,072 * 8) + 64 = 1,048,640. If 8.1.5 is taking up an entire extent just to store a bitmap I'd say it was roach-class bug and Oracle needs to apply some insecticide... WHOAH... I just discovered something on another 8.1.6 database which is not using Veritas. The datafile overhead for dictionary managed is 1 DB block but the datafile overhead for locally managed appears to be 4 DB blocks!!!!!!!!! I determined this from the following queries: SQL> select min(header_block)-1 "Overhead" from dba_segments where tablespace_n 2 ame ='SYSTEM'; Overhead ---------- 1 SQL> select min(header_block)-1 "Overhead" from dba_segments 2* where tablespace_name ='RMAN_REPOSITORY' SQL> / Overhead ---------- 4 SOooo... check it out. Run the above query on your tablespace. Then try allowing 4 DB blocks for overhead on locally managed with uniform extents. Let us know what happens on 8.1.5. HTH, Steve -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:22 PM To: steve_at_arzoo.com; ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com Cc: mad012000_at_hotmail.com Hi Steve, Thanks for the reply. That is the behaviour that we should have seen and we are on a filesystem and we did create a test tablespace with the overhead of a db block and it still exhibits same behaviour. Did u see this behaviour by any chance on a 8.1.5 database? Thanks for your help. Regards, Madhavan >From: "Steve Orr" <sorr_at_arzoo.com> >Reply-To: <steve_at_arzoo.com> >To: <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com> >CC: <mad012000_at_hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Locally managed tablespaces >Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:19:19 -0700 > >This is curious because I don't have this problem. Is this a bug on earlier >versions or a platform difference? We're running O8.1.6 on Solaris 2.6 with >Veritas. I've got 1GB datafiles which can hold 8 extents of 128M. Actually >the size of the datafiles are 1GB + 64K for the 4 db block overhead needed >for Veritas (my blocks are 16K). Are you taking into account the db blocks >needed for datafile overhead? (Normal=1, raw=2, Veritas=4...) > >Give this a try: Create a test tablespace of 1GB plus the necessary db >block >overhead. Then create a test table with an initial extent of 512M. Then try >to allocate another extent to see if it fits. If not extend the datafile by >another 2 db blocks and try it again. Let us know what happens. Good luck. > > >Steve Orr > > >-----Original Message----- >From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Madhavan >Amruthur >Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:11 PM >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L >Subject: Re: Locally managed tablespaces > > >Hi Jared, >Thanks for the mail. > >Yes, larger datafiles is an option but we wanted to create 2G datafiles as >a >standard here and about extent sizes we have created tablespaces based on >small, medium and large and the large tablespaces are going to host 3 >partitions of data which is about 55G. >If we have 10M extents that would mean 100*15 = 1500 extents for a segment >and a total of 4500 extents. > >But is this normal behaviour for locally managed tablespaces that an extent >from each datafile is grabbed? > >Thanks for your help. >Regards, >Madhavan >IBM Corporation > >Received on Tue Jun 20 2000 - 11:53:26 CDT
> >From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_bcbso.com>
> >To: Madhavan Amruthur <mad012000_at_hotmail.com>
> >CC: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >Subject: Re: Locally managed tablespaces
> >Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >Use smaller extent sizes and larger data files.
> >
> >You don't mention how many objects are in the tablespaces.
> >
> >4m extents would give you about 10,000 extents. Not
 |
 |