Re: 9i multi cache buffer

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0211200923.173e9db5_at_posting.google.com...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<7JhA9.75556$g9.212743_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > You're asking me????
> >
> > My advice on such matters is (1) consult your vendor and (2) consult
Steve
> > Adams, who says that HP-UX has an 8K block size. He goes on to say the
> > following (which makes about as much sense to me as the output from
top):
> >
>
> What doesn't make sense about the output from top? It's just a tool,
> you just need to know how to read it, without reading too much
> determinism into it. Is it the RES column that bothers you? That is
> just an approximation of the real memory usage at a particular
> snapshot in time, not adjusted for shared memory.
> It is useful for a very rough approximation of memory usage. Other
> tools are better for most purposes, but top is likely to be on any
> unix machine, while the other tools may require some amount of work or
> money to apply. So read the man page, look at the source if you
> really want to know something, google and ask reasonable questions.
>

It was a *joke*.

I don't particularly like Unix, but I can actually get by.

Regards
HJR
> > If your operating system is not listed in the table above, you should be
> > able to work out the file system buffer size by studying the ratio of
blks/s
> > to r+w/s in the sar -d output for various buffered filesystems.
>
> Well that certainly wouldn't make much sense if you don't have your
> system configured to be able to use sar. But if you do, take a look,
> division and ratios really aren't that hard!
>
> >
> > Let us know what the outcome is, so I can shut up about a 'right' block
> > size.
>
> I have a feeling this horse won't die so easy.
>
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> >
> > "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:aqrm06$p2s$1$8300dec7_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > See below
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Jonathan Lewis
> > > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
> > >
> > > Next Seminar dates:
> > > (see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html )
> > >
> > > ____USA__________November 7/9 (Detroit)
> > > ____USA__________November 19/21 (Dallas)
> > > ____England______November 12/14
> > >
> > > The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
> > > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Howard J. Rogers wrote in message ...
> > > >
> > > >Under Oracle9i individual tablespaces can have a block size that
> > differs
> > > >from the database block size. Of course, this should not be
> > considered if
> > > >the database is using buffered I/O, because in that case the database
> > block
> > > >size must match the file system buffer size exactly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As far as I am aware, I can choose the file system block-size on my HP
> > > each time I add a filesystem - so is there a unit block size that is
> > > used
> > > to support the HP filesystem irrespective of the declared filesystem
> > > block
> > > size ? (e.g. the 4K that I think may be the default HP memory page
> > > size).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> jg
> --
> @home is bull.
> <a href="http://www.pseudodictionary.com/Deja-Moo">Deja-Moo</a>
Received on Wed Nov 20 2002 - 13:02:42 CST