Re: Odd statement in docs regarding block size

From: RSH <RSH_Oracle_at_worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:36:40 GMT
Message-ID: <suFr8.7615$Rw2.638917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

The answer is "NO!".

db_block_size should be the same or an even multiple of the operating system block size. It should never, ever, ever, ever be a fraction of the os_block_size nor thould it be a non integer multiple of it.

RSH. "Steffen Ramlow" <as.ramlow_at_gmx.de> wrote in message news:a8n3qp$suamf$1_at_ID-54600.news.dfncis.de...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
> news:a8ko11$5pg$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > This is the same documentation that says SYSTEM can be created locally
> > managed, which is only true of 9i release 2. I wouldn't therefore pay it
> too
> > much attention on this issue; it is simply wrong if it implies 8K is the
> > only permitted block size on NT. I do 16K every time.
>
> hm, shoudn't the ora block size not always be equal to the os block size?
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 06 2002 - 10:36:40 CST