Re: Oracle 9i/Solaris 8/NFS & >4GB datafiles

Nuno Souto wrote:

>
> I'm confused right here. What is the relevance of NFS for this? Are
> you using NFS file systems (in the 32-bit 10K) in the 64-bit E250 to
> store your >4Gb data files? If so, are you surprised it doesn't work?

The relevance is to describe the system. And yes, I would be surprised if largefiles weren't supported in the 32bit kernel version of the same O/S. Largefiles were supported prior to Solaris going fully 64 bit. And, according to my tests via mkfile, they're also supported in my specific configuration.

> Nope, but IIRC ORACLE recommends strongly against creating its
> datafiles using NFS volumes. If nothing else, at least the NFS server
> should be 64-bit OS, no?

Again, why? And yes, I'm fully aware of what 2^32-1 is. The bitsize support of the native O/S should have no impact on the size of files supported (aside from performance issues). Now, obviously, the coders could get lazy and decide to only support the sizes that allow for easy coding (and potentially higher performance), but I don't believe that that's an issue with Solaris 8. Certainly it was with <5.6 even running on 64 bit UltraSparc.

> I think you should try out DB2. And make sure you are comparing
> apples and oranges, ie: make sure you install DB2 EXACTLY the same way
> you have installed O9i, with the same I/O distribution and same NFS
> file systems and OS mix. Who knows, it might work. Despite IBM also
> recommending against putting their datafiles in NFS volumns.

Okay, I'll give that a shot.

So perhaps my real question could be simplified to:

What deficiencies in NFS on Solaris 8 could cause files to truncate at 4GB using Oracle 9i? Or is this an issue of Oracle not using the appropriate file system calls? From what I've read, I believe they were supposed to have fixed all of this somewhere in the early Oracle8 versions.

-dU Received on Sat Dec 08 2001 - 21:15:51 CST