Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: GB Datafiles on W2K3 server

Re: GB Datafiles on W2K3 server

From: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 16 Jun 2005 15:40:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1118961625.901941.20560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


There are a number issues pertaining to this. Just off the top of my head:

What version are you on? Older versions of Oracle had some tools that had 2G file limits. Some people still habitually use this as a limit. 10G has options to make the decision easier.

What will your database do? You don't want database writers to be waiting for the file system to contend for the same file. You don't want to contend between redo and data files. Is it a data warehouse? OLTP? Mixed? Just a data store feeding an app server?

How will you do backups? RMAN can parallelize quite a bit if you let it and if your hardware can handle it, 5 datafiles better than 1. If you don't use a catalog, this can also affect your controlfile.

How will you restore? More datafiles means less data likely a problem, assuming a given problem only affects a datafile. Also, some management can be easier if indices are split from tables (but don't get suckered into the old myth of better performance with that split).

Are you going to be moving tablespaces between databases?

Are some tables going to be stable while others are volatile? Size differences of objects? Partitioning? Rate of growth? Other things on server?

Oracle seems to put things into a tablespace in different places with different numbers of data files. I'm not sure if this would make any difference given a SAME setup. It won't make any difference unless you are doing full table or index scans, and maybe not even then.

I'd go with the higher number of datafiles. But if you should happen to test something, many of us would be interested in your results and enough information to replicate. If you are just interested in getting the thing working with minimal work, less is more. I'm hoping the mere fact that you asked the question indicates you have an interest in "doing it right." With the most modern setups, there isn't really much impact unless you do it way wrong. Some people consider fewer large drives (as opposed to more smaller drives) wrong.

jg

-- 
@home.com is bogus.
http://theturtles.com/media.html
Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 17:40:25 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US