RE: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.

Jesse,

IMHO the only remaining valid reason for reduced size of datafiles is speed of (partial) recovery. If your datafiles are not to large you can restore a modest number of GB from tape and be done with it. But 2GB is too small for even that. I currently work mostly with datafiles of 8GB with databases in the range of 100-500GB. And I think I could very well live with datafiles of 32GB.

Regards,
Eric.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] Namens Jesse, Rich
> Verzonden: vrijdag 8 september 2006 16:17
> Aan: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Onderwerp: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.
>
> Many moons ago, way back in the 32-bit era when Y2K was a
> looming nightmare, I had instituted a policy that no Oracle
> datafile would be setup to grow larger than 2GB. This was
> due to some known bugs with files larger than 2GB on many
> platforms/filesystems at the time.
>
> As I'm now looking at a vendor's ERP installation, I was
> about to reduce their max datafile size from 32GB to 2GB when
> I asked myself "Why?". Is there any valid sane reason to do
> this anymore? I do not expect the DB size to grow beyond a
> modest 100GB in the next two years. The server is an IBM P5
> blade running AIX5.3 and using JFS filesystems. Other
> similar servers with other DBs (e.g. Sybase) currently handle
> db files in the 100's of GB with no problem.
>
> I don't see any need to limit the datafile size to 2GB
> anymore. Anyone else?
>
> TIA,
> Rich
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l