Re: Database Block Size

"frank" <fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote in message news:39EB3CD5.F8F83116_at_home.nl...
> Comment inline
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
>
> > Comments below
> > HJR
> > --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Opinions expressed are my own, and not those of Oracle Corporation
> > Oracle DBA Resources:

 http://www.geocities.com/howardjr2000
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > <snip>
> > That's got to be one of the most sensible postings of the subject I've
 seen
> > for weeks. All of it makes sense with (forgive me) the one exception of
> > rather avoiding the discussion about block size. I keep seeing total
 cr*p
> > posted here about the "fact" that block size would seem to depend on
 what
> > you use the database for: OLTP allegedly requires a small block size,
 and
> > data warehousing doesn't.
>
> Maybe you could tell Oracle to alter the documentation, then? You're
 closer
> than me ;-)
>

Have you read the documentation for the Backup and Recovery course??? The DBA course is bad enough, but the BUR one is worse. And no, complaining about it doesn't make a bit of difference. So whatever the documentation says, talk to the experts, and Steve Adams knows what he's talking about it (as far as I'm concerned, anyway).

And he says 8K is a given for most Unixes with file systems, for reasons that make entire good sense as far as I can work out.

So take it up with him.

Personally, I reckon this subject arouses so much debate because there are so many DBAs out there who made the wrong decision, and don't like to admit it. Probably too much effort to fix the balls-up.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Oct 17 2000 - 07:36:58 CDT