Aside from the logical conclusion that if you are never doing a backup it
follows that it doesn't matter if you hit any bugs, after all you can just
recreate right? then 10gb is a 'safe' size. I'd rather however create the
tablespace with 4 2561mb size files as a locally manged tablespace.( This is
4 times 2.5gb with a 1mb addition to each file for the bitmap). You can even
if you have the disks spread the io that way.
My recent experience is that there is a bug in 8i under NT whereby if a
datafile hits an *exact* multiple of 4GB then the database may die a
horrible death. This can happen under autoextend. The bug is fixed in a
patch set to 8.1.7 only. Now you don't envisage hitting multiples of 4gb but
given the existence of other bugs on other platforms with regard to 2gb etc
limits I'd suggest it prudent to avoid powers of 2 (gb) file sizes.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
"Randi Wølner" <randiwolner_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7sh27$svn$1_at_oslo-nntp.eunet.no...
> I have earlier been warned against data file sizes larger than 2 G.
> Right now I am just about to create a new database for a development
> environment. There will never be taken any backup of the database, so it
is
> not necessary to take any precautions in file size regarding that matter.
> But - there will (often) be done import of a dump file, where some of the
> tables are very big - 1 - 1,5G. For all the tables to "fit in" I think it
> would be a good idea to have one large data file of 10 G instead of 5 of 2
> G. Is that safe?? I think I heard sometime that there was a bug in some
> (earlier) version of Oracle for NT that made it very risky to have data
> files larger than 2G...
>
> Any experiences, ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Randi Wølner
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 27 2002 - 08:46:57 CST
