| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: BAARF
Oh, plenty of times. Just never heard it referred to as "OFA".
on 9/29/03 7:04 AM, Thomas Day at tday6_at_csc.com wrote:
>
> My struggle is not with the directory layout OFA.
>
> It is with the "mythical" OFA that every DBA that I have talked to knows
> all about. Where ORACLE says that if you are a good and competent DBA you
> will separate your table data and your index data into two separate
> tablespaces so that one disk head can be reading index entries while
> another disk head is reading the table data. You've never run into that?
>
>
>
>
> Tim Gorman <tim
> @sagelogix.com> To: Multiple recipients of
> list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> Sent by: cc:
> ml-errors Subject: Re: BAARF
>
>
> 09/28/2003 09:44
> PM
> Please respond
> to ORACLE-L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas,
>
> Please pardon me, but you are off-target in your criticisms of OFA.
>
> It has never advocated separating tables from indexes for performance
> purposes. Ironically, your email starts to touch on the real reason for
> separating them (i.e. different types of I/O, different recovery
> requirements, etc). Tables and indexes do belong in different tablespaces,
> but not for reasons of performance.
>
> Cary first designed and implemented OFA in the early 90s and formalized it
> into a paper in 1995. Quite frankly, it is a brilliant set of rules of how
> Oracle-based systems should be structured, and a breath of fresh air from
> the simplistic way that Oracle installers laid things out at the time. It
> took several years for Oracle Development to see the light and become
> OFA-compliant, and not a moment too soon either. Just imagine if
> everything
> were still installed into a single directory tree under ORACLE_HOME? All
> of things you mention here have nothing to do with OFA.
>
> Please read the paper.
>
> Hope this helps...
>
> -Tim
>
> P.S. By the way, multiple block sizes are not intended for performance
> optimization; they merely enable transportable tablespaces between
> databases with different block sizes.
>
>
> on 9/25/03 11:04 AM, Thomas Day at tday6_at_csc.com wrote:
>
>> >> I would love to have a definitive site that I could send all RAID-F >> advocates to where it would be laid out clearly, unambiguously, and >> definitively what storage types should be used for what purpose. >> >> Redo logs on RAID 0 with Oracle duplexing (y/n)? >> Rollback (or undo) ditto? >> Write intensive tablespaces on RAID 1+0 (or should that be 0+1)? >> Read intensive tablespaces on RAID ? (I guess 5 is OK since it's cheaper >> than 1+0 and you won't have the write penalty) >> >> While we're at it could we blow up the OFA myth? Since you're
>> are on datafiles that are on logical volumns that are on physical devices >> which may contain one or many actual disks, does it really make sense to >> worry (from a performance standpoint) about separating tables and indexes >> into different tablespaces? >> >> We have killed the "everything in one extent" myth haven't we?
>> comfortable with tables that have 100's of extents? >> >> And while we're at it, could we include the Oracle 9 multiple blocksizes >> and how to use them. The best that I've seen is indexes in big blocks, >> tables in small blocks --- uh, oh, time to separate tables and indexes. >> >> Maybe we will never get rid of the OFA myth. >> >> Just venting. >> >> Tired of arguing in front of management with Oracle certified DBAs that >> RAID 5 is not good, OFA is unnecessary, and uniform extents is the only
>> to go. Looking for a big stick to catch their attention with. >>
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman INET: tim_at_sagelogix.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).Received on Mon Sep 29 2003 - 16:54:39 CDT
 |
 |