RE: Autoextend or not?

From: <Joel.Patterson_at_crowley.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:20:22 -0400
Message-ID: <0684DA55864E404F8AD2E2EBDFD557DA02A338F6_at_JAXMSG01.crowley.com>

Not that I am aware of... but, I only implemented ASM once so far, on a windows box for a short amount of time, and that was about three years ago.

Joel Patterson
Database Administrator
904 727-2546
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery Thomas Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:41 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Autoextend or not?

Does having your storage managed by ASM changes the autoextend argument in any way?

Jeff

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, <Joel.Patterson_at_crowley.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jared, that if space is not an issue, then you probably
> won't encroach on the f/s size, (by which I figure f/s size means out of
> space).  I have 8K block sizes, so my files are not going to grow past
> 32Gbs, and if they did, well... another is going to be added, and if we
> are up past 95% full, then the sysadmin is going to add another LUN.
>
> Sometimes however when we begin to approach the 95% full mark and
> beyond, somebody decides to run some ad hoc query or something and boom,
> undo and/or temp explode out the door...   By the time they run up to
> 8Gbs, I figure its time they failed (at least the first time) before
> they eat up the next 24Gbs for nothing.   Or worse they finish after
> using say 30Gbs.
>
> So, for now since I have not massive 'loading' of data, autoextend on is
> working fine, and if needed limit the size of temp and undo to prevent
> runaways.
>
> Joel Patterson
> Database Administrator
> 904 727-2546

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


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

Received on Mon Apr 20 2009 - 12:20:22 CDT