Re: 2gb filesize, large disks and splitting tablespaces

Very interesting - I'm looking on Metalink for that now.

Based on all posts, I think I'll be sticking with 2000M come what may for the time being, so thanks to all for advice.

AW

"Connor McDonald" <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3B1E6B1F.40B0_at_yahoo.com...
> andrew_webby at hotmail wrote:

 <snip>
>
> Excluding the 2g issues in terms of OS bugs, Oracle bugs etc, the reason
> I'm a fan of 2G or less is
>
> a) its a lot easier to move 2G around than (say) 8G. I can run several
> moves in parallel to make maintenance quicker, similarly I can back up
> them in parallel (although most streaming backup solutions can now do
> that with larger files anyway)
>
> b) More files means less inode contention for the files (in particular
> temporary tablespaces). There is a known bug at the moment with vxfs
> and 8.1.x (fixed in 8.1.7.1 maybe) where you get a slowdown because of
> nasty vxfs level locking (workaround is to use raw or quick IO)
>
> hth
> connor
> --
> ==============================
> Connor McDonald
>
> http://www.oracledba.co.uk
>
> "Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."
Received on Thu Jun 07 2001 - 04:49:13 CDT