Re: cost of autoextend
From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:47:35 +0000
Message-ID: <7765c8971003160047t6ce6dcaaja52dae39835fbad_at_mail.gmail.com>
Actually I'm not so sure that it does. There was a time for sure when it did mean that, but both disk volumes and databases have expanded such that I've seen more than a few people reach the capacity of there autoextend datafile before they hit lun capacity. Something about the word unlimited fools them I think.
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:47:35 +0000
Message-ID: <7765c8971003160047t6ce6dcaaja52dae39835fbad_at_mail.gmail.com>
Actually I'm not so sure that it does. There was a time for sure when it did mean that, but both disk volumes and databases have expanded such that I've seen more than a few people reach the capacity of there autoextend datafile before they hit lun capacity. Something about the word unlimited fools them I think.
On Mar 16, 2010 7:39 AM, "De DBA" <dedba_at_tpg.com.au> wrote:
Exactly my point: autoextend merely moves the focus of attention from tablespace usage to filesystem usage. Snowing in or surf's up notwithstanding, the responsible DBA must still keep an eye out for the moment where space runs out. Same diff.
Cheers,
Tony
On 15/03/10 8:25 PM, Gus Spier wrote:
> > > Autoextend allows me to get sick, snowed in, or overwhelmed by >
> user/management demands for att...
>
> > <mailto:adar666_at_inter.net.il>> wrote: > > You are mostly right. >
> I prefer to extend, rather...
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Mar 16 2010 - 02:47:35 CDT