Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards

RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards

From: Eric D. Pierce <>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:47 -0700
Message-Id: <>

On 20 Sep 2000, at 17:40, Satar Naghshineh wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:40:24 -0800
To:             	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <>
Send reply to:
From:           	Satar Naghshineh <>
Subject:        	RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards

> I must admit, I am at a disadvantage because I didn't read his paper.

same here, but I hope to get it and see.

> here are some questions I have in regards to the ability to standardize
> installations:
> 1. Doesn't OFA address issues in naming conventions?

Is OFA the exact same implementation for Unix and NT? If not, then there is likely to be some relevant analysis of OFA for NT, no?

> 2. Doesn't common sense dictate that you want to spread I/O out evenly? How
> can you have a standard on "file locations" when I might have two hard
> drives and someone else have 20?

I thought there was a rule of thumb for all OS platforms of a minimum of least 7 disks (for average db), perhaps something like this is discussed, along with pros/cons of departing from the proposed "standard".

> 3. "what goes in which tablespace" Assuming that you are meaning "objects in
> Tablespaces", cannot be standardized, not even SYSTEM.

Aren't there some general basics, eg, don't put data, indexes & temp., etc. in SYSTEM???

> 4. "what RAID levels are preferred", There is no standards in RAID
> preference. One might choose not to run on a RAID system. Sean might tell us
> of the different RAID systems and the pro and cons of them based on the type
> of database of a certain set of data, but he can't say if you run an OLTP
> database you should run RAID 50.

dunno, I'm not very RAID oriented (we just mirror).

> Again, naming conventions are covered by OFA, if you need a copy, order it
> from Oracle.

IS there a document that is NT specific? If Sean's paper is more useful (which might mean more brief) than Oracle's, and it's free, I'm not going to waste time reading any more of Oracle's obtuse documentation.

>There can be no standard database install. If you believe in a
> standard base install, you probably believe in an answer to someone's
> question on "How can I improve my performance on Oracle" or "How do I backup
> my database".

I'll be interested in seeing if other people that have looked at the proposed standards document think it has merit, or not. My assumption is that standards are not detailed instructions for configuring every possible system, they are more like general guidelines (for an "average" set up), some of which may be violated, or elaborated upon, Received on Wed Sep 20 2000 - 21:21:47 CDT

Original text of this message