Re: 2 GB myth

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41aad392$0$9113$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > You started with agruing with something I didn't say.
>
> Incorrect. I pointed out that saying 'recovery is not affected by the
> number of disk files, especially with today's hardware' misses the point
> entirely.

Sometimes you should actually read before answering. It was "bigger datafiles don't make recovery much slower. Not with the current hardware anyway". It's different from your "is not affected".  

> And is in any case not true when >1 file needs restoring.

I won't even point it was _datafile_ recovery. As for many datafiles, there is some difference for small number of datafiles (especially from different tablespaces). The more datafiles, the less difference obviously. Now add time to place tapes, rewind to the right spot to start streaming, going through redo logs and you'll probably find larger file doesn't cost you that much.

> Otherwise, I couldn't construct the sentences needed to
> debunk your sillinesses.

...
> I'll do my best. Try not to write harmful, misleading, technically inept
> rubbish in the meantime, there's a good chap.

And this is a man I congratulated on not swearing in public for once :( You're fast approaching this point, don't hit it.

Dissapointed. Is it the language you use with your clients or it's reserved for you virtual personality? Actually, don't answer, it doesn't matter.

Igor

> HJR
Received on Tue Nov 30 2004 - 00:31:36 CST