Re: [Q] db_block_size: 8K vs 2K default: Why is it better?

From: <speedrazer_at_my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/03/05
Message-ID: <89tme7$u6h$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1

Quest software just released an interesting white paper on this subject. Check it out at:

http://www.quest.com/newsletter/v2i5/index.asp?body=block.html

In article <38A72282.D47EA434_at_hotmail.com>, Stephen Hurrell <hurrells_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> OK.
> <p>Still looking for valid information about the db_block_size effect.
> <p>I have read various documents describing why you would adjust your
block
> size from the default 2K.
> <br>These articles, books and personal opinions break down as follows:
> <ul>
> <li>
> Changing from the default 2k has no noticeable affect.</li>
>
> <li>
> Changing from the default 2k upto 4k or 8k has a big noticeable
effect.</li>
>
> <li>
> You should change oracle db_block_size to match your os or db size
(e.g.:
> 8k on HP-UX, 4k on Solaris 2.x)</li>
> </ul>
> I understand the relationship between larger block size results in
fewer
> block reads from disk, shallower indexes and all sorts of OS
performance
> improvements.</html>
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Sun Mar 05 2000 - 00:00:00 CST