Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 25508 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2006 07:13:48 -0500 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2006 07:13:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 795F834DD3C; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30213-05; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 02B3734DD2D; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 86DA234DD27 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29919-06 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailc.nysemail.state.ny.us (mailc.nysemail.state.ny.us [198.22.236.83]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 5C20F34DC9B for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXCNYSM0A1AJ.nysemail.nyenet ([10.66.81.139]) by mailc.nysemail.state.ny.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Subject: RE: High disk capacity dangers Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: High disk capacity dangers Thread-Index: AcaJYY0tDIOeK6sxTK+WicOe+Dp4ZQAAPY/w From: "Mercadante, Thomas F \(LABOR\)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2006 12:13:06.0931 (UTC) FILETIME=[919B4430:01C68962] X-archive-position: 35621 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: Thomas.Mercadante@labor.state.ny.us Precedence: normal Reply-to: Thomas.Mercadante@labor.state.ny.us X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at avenirtech.net I'd be curious to know what number he feels is "ok". 90%? And why? -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Fred Smith Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:05 AM To: oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: High disk capacity dangers Just wanted to run this by everyone here, I have a 9.2.0.6 database on HP-UX. Some of my read only tablespaces are on a physical disk that I keep at about 99% capacity (it's not going to grow obviously, it's read-only). The new Unix SA is saying that it's unacceptable and dangerous to keep a disk at 98,99, or 100% capacity. I always thought it could be even at 100% capacity without any problems. Is there any reason that anyone knows of as to why a disk should not be at 99% or 100% capacity? Thank you! _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l