Re: Database Block Size

Nuno Souto wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:34:27 -0400, Walter T Rejuney
> <BlueSax_at_Unforgetable.com> wrote:
>
> >snip of very good info.
>
> What we must not forget is that most "directives" on block size from
> ORACLE relate to raw disk access. That's where database block size is
> realy relevant for performance.
>
> When we're talking "cooked" file system files, then all bets are open
> and it's a case-by-case, OS-by-OS thing.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html

Is there any file that I can look at or any command that I can issue which demonstrates the 8K block size? I'm starting to get convinced by this argument, but I need a little bit better authority then just saying "I read on USENET that....".

Also, if this is true, why is it never mentioned in any of Oracle's documentation? Or is it there and I've just never seen it.

The argument itself is sound and I can see why there is a linkage between the OS block size and the database block size for the sake of efficiency - I just need a white paper, documentation or an authoratative source that I can can cite as evidence.

By the way, what is the corresponding block sizes for WinNT, Win2K and Win98? So far the only platforms I have had to create databases for are Windows and Unix. Received on Tue Oct 17 2000 - 09:27:18 CDT