Re: Online creation/extension of Tablespaces possible??

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:17:38 -0700
Message-ID: <1095023924.353482@yasure>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>

>>I mean't raw ... sorry about any poor choice of verbiage.
>>
>>And yes I've seen Oracle's slide show and it is not what I teach, it is
>>not what Oracle system specialists on this continent advise, and is in
>>my opinion preposterous.

>
>
> If you're going to create a RAC database, you need two controlfiles,
> minimum. SYSTEM, two UNDO, TEMP and DATA, minimum. You need a *minimum* of
> 4 redo logs, assuming just a two-node RAC, times two because you multiplex
> them. You need an spfile. And you (probably) need a voting partition.
> That's 17 things to store, for the barest, simplest database with a minimum
> of multiplexing/safety features in just a two-node RAC.
>
> If you aren't going to create 17 separate raw partitions to house that lot,
> I can't quite see how you're going to do it at all -short of implementing a
> cluster file system, obviously.
>
> So it seems to me that a veritable plethora of raw partitions is an absolute
> *requirement* for a RAC on raw, not a preposterous configuration at all.

17 is manageable. Breaking up one 36GB drive into 2GB partitions gives 18. And if you calculate this out over a 5TB database, not at all unusual these days ... do the math.

>>That said ... I don't see anything anywhere in my shop that has a 2GB
>>limit other than Windows. 

>
> Bzzzt!! Well, that's a good 30% plus of the Oracle installed base, then,
> isn't it? (At least).

I can't argue this point as I don't know. But what I do know, from personal experience, is that I am aware of only a handful of companies in the area doing production Oracle on Windows.

  Good convert to the Other Side though I may be, you
> can't just dismiss Windows like that. If it's true for Windows, it's true
> for a lot of people.

Don't tempt me. ;-)

>>I agree with sizing for backup/restore 
>>purposes. 

>
>
> Then we agree, which is the main thing.

Yes ... but 2GB?

>>But who has anything in their data center that considers 2GB 
>>a size limit?

>
> I'm not sure what that question means. I didn't mean to suggest that 2GB is
> an actual size limit. Merely that I would like to think of it as a
> *practical* limit in many circumstances. Of course, my opinion starts to
> change when your database starts nosing into the 100GB+ territory. But
> until then, 2GB is a sensible suggestion, I think.
>
> Regards
> HJR
And I would like to think of 2GB as too small to be of practical interest: Maybe that's just an American thing. ;-)

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Sun Sep 12 2004 - 16:17:38 CDT