Re: fragmentation issues

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:30:32 +1000
Message-ID: <40b85827$0$31678$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b84e6f$0$3038$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...

> As in DMT extents. I'm not sure we should still call the LMT
> allocations "extents"? Are they? Come to think of it: is it
> still correct to use the term "extent" with LMT? I know it's there,
> but an extent with LMT can be made up of non-contiguous allocations
> of the LMT allocation size. Those may not necessarily be contiguous.
> While the term extent traditionally implied a contiguous allocation of
> space. Am I explaining myself well here?

Yes.

But you can't use the word "chunks". LOBS have already snagged those. As have chocolate bars.

> (DBA_CHUNKS is new to me?)

Because it doesn't exist. I was speculating what view we'd have to have if we let you have your nomenclature.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 04:30:32 CDT