fs files versus raw partitions...

From: Grabowy, Chris <chris.grabowy_at_lmco.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:58:03 -0500
Message-id: <974B0BC4C9F3BB40B2651F8FC12B7B98A520EC@EMSS04M12.us.lmco.com>

We have been using raw partitions for our data files because of the "performance" gain over file system files. But now that we have moved everything to a SAN(IBM Shark) were questioning the need for raw partitions. Before we can make the move mgmt wants to know why???

So here is my "long" list so far...

• a file system file is easier to manage
  • move, copy, delete, rename, etc.
  • generally, a tablespace will have one fs file versus many raw partitions.
  • a fs file can be easily resized, or auto resize itself.
  • naming convention. Currently, our raw partitions are named sequentially, with a fs file we can match the file name to the table space name. So it is easier to tell from the OS which file belongs to which tablespace.
• Better utilization of storage.
  • I noticed in OEM that only about 75-80% of each raw partition is used. In theory this fragmentation (at the end of each raw partition) will be eliminated when we switch to a single fs file.
  • I believe that backups backup the entire raw partition regardless of how much is used.

Any other thoughts? ideas? white papers?

TIA Chris

---

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

---

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Mon Feb 09 2004 - 13:58:03 CST