Re: 2gb filesize, large disks and splitting tablespaces

Steve sez: http://www.ixora.com.au/q+a/0008/30150113.htm

"Up to 8.0 the number of data files had a potential impact on DBWn performance,
not that it could not be managed with proper tuning. That is no longer an issue
under 8.1, but there is still a small impact at checkpoints and a small impact
on the per process memory usage. However, whether you choose 50 x 2G datafiles
or 100 x 1G datafiles should be decided entirely of the basis of ease of management, not performance."

I'll take that as gospel unless anyone has any horror stories they'd like to contribute? Especially re: the >2gb 'limit'...

Meanwhile, I'll buy some bullets, but as 'ultimate decision' DBA, may end up having to use them myself... ;-)

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote in message news:3b1cf539.6141477_at_news-server...
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:40:10 +0100, "andrew_webby at hotmail"
> <spam_at_no.thanks.com> wrote:
>
> >Any advantages one way or the other d'ya think? Such a thing as 'datafile
> >header contention'? Are the db_writer's more 'intelligent' with multiple
> >files?
> >
>
> IIRC, there is something in Steve's site about this and more 2Gb files
> being better than less >2Gb files. Can't remember the details, you
> might have to go for a gander there.
>
> Me? After being bitten many, many times with nasty undocumented bugs
> in just about every combination of OS and Oracle, if anyone asks me to
> create a file greater than 2Gb in ANY OS, I just shoot them on the
> spot. Problem solved.
>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
Received on Tue Jun 05 2001 - 11:23:29 CDT