Re: Why the size of Oracle 10g database is much smaller than Oracle 9i?

Matt wrote:

> Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
> disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
> disk spaces.
> Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
> on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
> in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
> users?
>
> Please advise. Thanks!!

Actually, to get the same set of options and add-ons you still end up with 3 disks (or more) although only the DB disk seems totally filled. For example, what is now the "Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control" on a separate disk is effectively the same (in concept) as the Oracle Management Server and related pieces in 9i which was part of the 9i 3-disk set.

They repackaged it so you could get away with 1 disk for a base install. I suspect they may have found some redundant files during the repackaging as well.

I know around here people were complaining about how many disks it takes to install Oracle. Now (thanks to the whiners?) it takes fewer disk for each of a lot more different installs. Win some, lose some? All I know is that the onus is now on us to remember to start each of those installs from a different source.

However, the change in disk layout and packaging is as nothing compared to the significant improvements in technology. For that, I refer you to the documentation, especially the Concepts and the New Features manuals which detail the answers to the next logical set of questions.

/Hans Received on Sun Nov 14 2004 - 22:21:36 CST