Re: diff bewteen 8i and 9i?

On Thu, 31 May 2001 19:12:28 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote:

>>
>
>I'll confirm that there's a section in the course notes stating that Server
>Manager is defunct, and 'connect internal' now produces an error message.
>

David's prezzie actually contains a nice little slide with an error being returned when calling svrmgrl! :-)

>
>The course notes agree that keep/recycle and default only relate to the
>'standard block size' (ie, the one you pick when you create the database).
>All other block sizes chosen when you create a tablespace must have a home
>to go to in the buffer cache -but those 2, 4 8, 16 or 32K non-standard
>caches are flat caches with no internal divisions.

I'd settle for one buffer cache per tablespace, tuneable. Don't really need one buffer cache per block size, that doesn't help much. Oh well, we'll see how it develops. But it's beginning to look like a wasted opportunity of catching up with DB2's vastly superior buffer cache. Once again... <sigh>

>
>Incidentally, Nuno was correct when he complained that the *total* SGA size
>is fixed, since you can add or remove bits from the SGA (in units called
>'granules') only upto the limit specified by an over-riding SGA size
>parameter. Still, strikes me Nuno wants blood from a stone!! 'Sgot to be
>better than a kick in the teeth!

Me? Nah, I don't care about the SGA upper limit provided I can re-shuffle things within it. Happy as a bird with that one. Not happy at all with the buffer cache, though. Not one bit. Sincerely hope I misunderstood it.

>
>Difficult to say -the US will get it first, of course. Trainers in OZ are
>meeting the product for the first time in June. I imagine we won't be
>training it until at least Octoberish. Mileage will vary. I don't rate
>your chances if you live in Timbucctoo of seeing it before 2002 (and no, it
>wasn't intended to rhyme).

Make sure you ping me for the first "diffs" course, deal?

>Incidentally, I forgot to mention: ORA-1555s are a thing of the past, since
>you can now protect rollback required for read-consisitent image preparation
>for any given length of time (the default appears to be 30 seconds). Must
>be worth an upgrade for that fact alone, I'd say.

Hehehe! Not so fast, bro Rogers! It's still possible, we just can delay it for quite a while. Or so my reading of David's prezzie lead me to believe.

Not sure exactly how that's gonna work. How the heck are we supposed to know what's a sufficient delay? Suck it and see?

Nevertheless, I'd kill to have 9i right now. For many a number of reasons.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 23:47:15 CEST