Re: Tutorial about STORAGE parameters

From: Frank <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 14:29:52 +0100
Message-ID: <3E60B5D0.2080600@netscape.net>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> An excellent suggesiton from Norman, but I would want to qualify that
> advice by saying that the extent sizes proposed in the paper he references
> are distinctly odd, and you'd be much better off creating extent sizes
> following the same sort of algorithm that Oracle itself uses with
> auto-allocated locally managed tablespaces... namely, 64K etxents, 1MB
> extents, 8MB and 64MB for the really big tables.
> 
> I can't see any possible need for any other extent sizes (though I have
> occasionally been known to ignore my own advice and slot a 512K extent
> tablespace in between the 64K and 1M ones).
> 
> Regards
> HJR
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:10:14 +0000, Norman Dunbar wrote:
> 
> 

>>Afternoon Francesco,
>>
>>have a look on Metalink for a doc called 'how to stop defragmenting and
>>start living'. That will tell you how to set up 4 tablespaces with
>>uniform extent sizings whioch will suffice for (almost) all your needs.
>>
>>Then create Locally Managed Tablespaces (if you have 8.1.7.4 onwards - a
>>bit flaky before then) using the 'extent management local uniform size'
>>options.
>>
>>From then on, you won't have much in the way of worries.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Norman.
>>
>>-------------------------------------
>>Norman Dunbar
>>Database/Unix administrator
>>Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
>>mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk
>>Tel: 0113 289 6265
>>Fax: 0113 289 3146
>>URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
>>-------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Francesco M. [mailto:fmarchioniNIENTESPAM_at_libero.it]
>>Posted At: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:53 PM
>>Posted To: server
>>Conversation: Tutorial about STORAGE parameters
>>Subject: Tutorial about STORAGE parameters
>>
>>
>>Hi Oracle users,
>>I'm looking for a tutorial/articles that shows me
>>how to choose the correct storage parameters
>>for TableSpace-Table tuning.
>>Anybody has a got a link ?
>>Thanks a lot
>>Francesco

>
>

But there is a logical relation between the sizes: they all are a factor 32 apart; your 64k - 1M - 8M - 64M is odd in that respect: 16 - 8 - 8 - 8.
Following the rule, described in the article mentioned would result in 64k/2M/64M. For most of the databases, the 64k and 2M will be enough; the 64M tablespace would harbour segments over 2GB.

The document suggests extent sizes of 128k - 4M - 128M for 8.0 onwards, fail to see what is odd about that.

Regards, Frank van Bortel Received on Sat Mar 01 2003 - 07:29:52 CST