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: Enable 32K Block in 8K Block DB

Re: Enable 32K Block in 8K Block DB

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:56:09 +1000
Message-ID: <4072002d$0$1990$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"David Williams" <djw_at_smooth1.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:c4stsg$h3$1_at_newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:c4otl4$3fg$1_at_news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> > Bottom line (still) is - don't use buffered IO; use direct or raw
> > (why do you think every benchmark of oracle still uses raw?!?)
>
> Really Oracle benchmarks all use raw?...As an Informix person why did
> I used to keep hearing
>
> "according to Oracle raw devices are not faster, in fact filesystems
are
> quicker"
>
> FROM MY CUSTOMERS than?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Used to really annoy me...so Oracle have come around to my way of
> thinking than?
> As it's faster? What a suprise...

The discussion is not so much whether raw is faster or slower than a file system, on which the jury is still out. The issue here is: with a file system that does buffered I/O, am I free to choose any Oracle block size I like? (nope). Can I achieve performance gains by adopting multiple blocksizes within the one database? (nope).

That's a completely different discussion than the one you seem to want to start.

Regards
HJR

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Dizwell Informatics: http://www.dizwell.com
  -A mine of useful Oracle information-
          -Windows Laptop Rac-
    -Oracle Installations on Linux-
===========================================
Received on Mon Apr 05 2004 - 19:56:09 CDT

Original text of this message

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