Re: ORACLE AND UNIX QUESTION

In article <outputCxFnIs.8C7_at_netcom.com>

           output_at_netcom.com "Output Services" writes:

> In article <781720147snz_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk> psb_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk:
> >In article <2aa.553.846%mpcbbs_at_ibase.org.br>
> > Carlos.Netto_at_ibase.org.br "Carlos Netto" writes:
> >> I use raw-devices on a production machine. I don't know anything about
> >> performance improvement. I choose to use raw-devices because it's possible
> >> to loose a data-file when using fsck. But be sure, it's harder to
> >> administrate
> >
> >That's like saying that I leave the lawnmower outside so that we don't trip
> >over it in the lounge.
>
> I implemented raw FS at our site for the same reason. After a crash,
> fsck will come up with orphaned inodes that it will then "clear."
> This looks awfully spooky to me. Maybe I'm paranoid, and this is
> perfectly ok, but I don't think so. Altho, I'm still waiting for
> someone to run newfs against an "unmounted" oracle partition and
> waste the tablespace. :-)
>
> Marty

The point I was making was that there might well be good reasons for using raw partitions rather than filesystems but that is NOT a good one B_E_C_A_U_S_E (and perhaps I should have made this explicit) the tablespaces can go in their own filesystems away from all other OS or user files. Then there will be no inode creation activity or file enlargement on that tablespace and fsck will never barf on _those_ tablespaces.

-- 
Paul Beardsell                          SAM Business Systems Ltd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                          21 Finn House, Bevenden St,
pbeardsell_at_cix.compulink.co.uk          London, N1-6BN, UK.
psb_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk                (+44 or 0)71 608-2391