Re: Database Block Size

Frank wrote:
>
> I'm convinced. And willing to learn. And -rereading the thread in Unix mode-
> it makes more sense. Or the opposite <grin>
> Will go for 8k on Unix as from now on. Cooked, that is.
> BTW, I come across many (well...) sysops that are _very_ reluctant to
> start off with raw fs. Cannot convince them always.
> Any war stories on terrible performing dbms's on cooked fs, that flash on
> raw?
> --
> Frank
> Howard J. Rogers <howardjr_at_www.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 39ec3a53_at_news.iprimus.com.au...
> > "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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

I get the same gripe....My workaround is to

1. ask for raw
2. if that gets declined, ask for Quick IO (Veritas)
3. if that gets declined, ask for Direct I/O mounted file systs

after that ... ask for another contract :-)

HTH

-- 
===========================================
Connor McDonald
http://www.oracledba.co.uk
(faster/mirrored at http://www.oradba.freeserve.co.uk)

Its not the voices in my head that bother me... 
  its the voices in yours.