Re: switch from file system to raw device

Igor <igor.news_at_merkudelete.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.15.14.12.20.524149_at_merkudelete.org>...
> > AFAIK, you can't switch and existing file.
>
> > However creating a new tablespace that has datafiles in raw partitions,
> > moving the tables, and dropping the original tablespace is always a
> > possibility (except for system tablespace).
> Yeah, right.
>
> > Of course a potentially 'better' solution would be to create a 9i or 10g
> > database and transport the data (probably using exp/imp). But we all
> > understand there are thousands of reasons for not moving to a supported
> > version of the database.
> Your words are gold worth.
>
>
> > However, it's not necessarily a good idea to switch. This day and age, many
> > file systems are fast enough that the supposed performance advantage of raw
> > is minimal. (I've even heard 'negative'). Probably although worth
> > investigating though.
> We have made some testing and found from 50 to 70% better performance
> on raw logical volume. But that has been on different storage system, so
> might really have changed. Means I will have to adapt backup procedure...
> At last, this particular db will not live more than a year, year and a
> half ... so might really not be worth worrying about...

A decade ago people were arguing about this, and a lot of it came from the methodology, ie, did the performance increase come from side-effects of going to the raw volume such as cleaning up oversized high-water marks (not to mention fragmentation [myths])?

>
> >
> > Check metalink for other notes. ;-Q
> Yeah, you are right, metalink. Just tried to see, if there is anyone
> reading with experience. I guess, I have just to try that out.
>

Put the words raw and performance into a google search of comp.databases.oracle.*

> Thanks a lot for your contribute.
> Have a nice day and best regards,
> Igor

My opinion is it generally isn't worth it.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Drive it like it's a rental car.