Re: number of redolog groups

Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.nospam.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<tqnsqvgifnuol37fhndhvcenkji205nh1v_at_4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:10:10 -0800, Daniel Morgan
> <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >I see no point in having more than two groups.
> >I see a lot of point in having more than two members to a group.
> >Or am I having an attack of syntax dyslexia?
>
> You have.
> There is no point in having more than two members.
> There is a lot of point in having more than 2 groups, which is
> largely determined by how write-intensive your instance is.

what are the chances that HJR takes a bite out of this part:
> There is no point in having more than two members.

I'm thinking about 4 nines.
He seemed to be preferential to 3 members per group.

As Oracle can use all available redo log members to feed the archiver processes, having more than 2 members per group could help to speed up archiving.
(at the cost of LGWR having to write to multiple redo log group members).

It goes back to "it depends".
personally, I only use 2, except where there is a killer storage subsystem in place with more than sufficient IO capacity.

Pd Received on Sun Nov 09 2003 - 13:22:08 CST