Re: block size
From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:48:28 -0700
Message-ID: <bf46380910271048k7f17768fmdee3f784a4a1485a_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, dbvision_at_iinet.net.au < dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
This URL is a shortcut to a ML search, so it won't work if you are not already logged into to ML.
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:48:28 -0700
Message-ID: <bf46380910271048k7f17768fmdee3f784a4a1485a_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, dbvision_at_iinet.net.au < dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> I also nowadays have serious doubts of Oracle's storage layer stability
> when
> using anything other than 8K blocks. The number of bugs in the online
> place
> related to handling non-8k block sizes is staggering.
>
>
Indeed, a search of the bug database on 4k, 16k and 32k block size
returns 99 hits;
*http://tinyurl.com/oracle-block-size-bugs* * *
This URL is a shortcut to a ML search, so it won't work if you are not already logged into to ML.
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Oracle Blog: http://jkstill.blogspot.com
Home Page: http://jaredstill.com
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 12:48:28 CDT