Re: check sum init.ora

From: M.Godlewski <mcgodlewski_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20040611160624.66622.qmail@web42007.mail.yahoo.com>

Tim,

Your right! I looked at the parameter file and thought I saw false before I sent the note. I then went back and double checked and it is true. I must have been looking at db_block_checking.

As always your help is appreciated.

tim_at_sagelogix.com wrote:
Default is TRUE in 9i, so unless anyone explicitly sets it to FALSE, just about *everybody* is using it.

The real question is why this is still exposed as a configurable parameter. Should have been made an "underscore" or "hidden" parameter years ago (defaulting to TRUE, of course!).

There is no measurable overhead or cost. There is, however, measurable benefit.

> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 name=check sum init.ora
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "M.Godlewski"
Subject: check sum init.ora
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org

I'm looking into enabling the db_block_checksum parameter. I've searched through the archives, but haven't seen any indication if there is a significant overhead on performance when running with this parameter enabled.

The Oracle dba guide has a note: "There is some overhead and decrease in database performace with DB_BLOCK_CHECKSUM enabled. Monitor your database performance to decide if the benefit of using data block checksums to detect corruption outweights the performace impact."

Does anyone currently run with checksum turned on? What performance impact have you noticed?

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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 Fri Jun 11 2004 - 11:03:38 CDT