Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Odd statement in docs regarding block size

Re: Odd statement in docs regarding block size

From: Howard J. Rogers <dba_at_hjrdba.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:07:44 +1000
Message-ID: <ad22ba$gcl$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>


Don't take my word for it. Check out Steve Adams' comments, at www.ixora.com.au. Look under Tips (I think). There's an article there called 'choosing a large database block size'.

Regards
HJR "dbuckingham" <member_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:3cf471bd$1_at_usenetgateway.com...
> HJR comments that in NT/2000 he always sets the DB_BLOCK_SIZE to be 16k
> and others back that it should be either the same as or a multiple of
> the os_block_size. In NT/2000 I believe that the default is 8k, so is
> there a real need to set them at 16k?
>
> Basically I am after some clarification as to how I should set them in
> NT/2000 for currently we have them set to 8k and i want to know if this
> is optimal?
>
> Any comments.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Buckingham
> Technical Consultant
> Mercia Software
>
> Posted via dBforums
> http://dbforums.com
Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 03:07:44 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US