There was a bug I forgot the number in Metalink it talked about files that
sat exactly on the 4GB and 8GB boundary where performance problems would be
experienced. I personally also stay on the 2GB mark for files, easier to
move around, dont have to worry if recovery is to system that cant excedd
2gb etc etc. Also export/import still cant handle over 2gb files. thats why
there is the filesize parameter on export now.
"andrew_webby at hotmail" <spam_at_no.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:991907381.27289.0.nnrp-01.c30bdde2_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> Very interesting - I'm looking on Metalink for that now.
>
> Based on all posts, I think I'll be sticking with 2000M come what may for
> the time being, so thanks to all for advice.
>
> AW
>
> "Connor McDonald" <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B1E6B1F.40B0_at_yahoo.com...
> > andrew_webby at hotmail wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Excluding the 2g issues in terms of OS bugs, Oracle bugs etc, the reason
> > I'm a fan of 2G or less is
> >
> > a) its a lot easier to move 2G around than (say) 8G. I can run several
> > moves in parallel to make maintenance quicker, similarly I can back up
> > them in parallel (although most streaming backup solutions can now do
> > that with larger files anyway)
> >
> > b) More files means less inode contention for the files (in particular
> > temporary tablespaces). There is a known bug at the moment with vxfs
> > and 8.1.x (fixed in 8.1.7.1 maybe) where you get a slowdown because of
> > nasty vxfs level locking (workaround is to use raw or quick IO)
> >
> > hth
> > connor
> > --
> > ==============================
> > Connor McDonald
> >
> > http://www.oracledba.co.uk
> >
> > "Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 09 2001 - 17:29:46 CDT
