Re: Oracle vs filesystem block size
Date: 15 Oct 1994 08:06:06 GMT
Message-ID: <37o2he$ive_at_ticsa.com>
>Why do you prefer 8K blocks to 2K blocks? When doing table scans the parameter
>db_file_multiblock_read_count kicks in and can be adjusted larger in response to
>small blocks giving maximum I/O throughput. On the other hand when doing single
>row retrieval, such as indexed retrieval, won't the smaller I/O complete faster?
>
Well somewhere (I think the 7.0.15 config and installation guide for Solaris)
Oracle says the db_block_size must be a multiple of the filesystem block size.
Since db_block_size has a max of 8K and we want at least 8K filesystem blocks
there seems little choice. I didn't see the same comment from Oracle in the
config guide for HP (but didn't look hard). The thing is that HP-UX 9 defaults
filesystem block to 8K and the default Oracle block size is 2K (same values
hold on Solaris 2.3) which contradicts their suggestion!
>Another option to consider on HP/UX is to use the logical volume manager to
>create raw volumes, and take the file system out of the picture completely. This
>was the approach stongly recommended by Oracle's Product Manager for HP at IOUW.
>
This is being considered. Some say the difference is not as marked with Oracle 7
as for 6. Apparently a future release of OmniBack is designed to work with
raw devices to simplify backup of this type of datafile.
Cheers
Gavin
--- . /| The / | Vector / | Group --------------------------------------- /\ |____ Gavin Maltby, Vector Durban / \/| | Email: gavin_at_durban.vector.co.za \ \| | Tel: INT+ 27 31 266 9948 \ | / Fax: INT+ 27 31 266 0811 \ | / Note: I speak for myself, and not \ | / necessarily for Vector or Sun! \|/ -------------------------------------- " Sun Partner in South AfricaReceived on Sat Oct 15 1994 - 09:06:06 CET