Re: Oracle datafile size in Windows

See Richard's excellent note suggesting option 2 and justifying it in terms of B & R. How many disks do you have? If it is one raid 5 array the point is probably somewhat moot. You will in any case run into a file size limitation caused not by any NT limitation but by the fact that an oracle datafile can only have so many blocks.

I'd also suggest that you don't think of the db as 100gb of data but as comprised of tables of varying sizes. You will want to create a range of locally managed tablespaces with different uniform sizes. 1 with an extent size of say 64k for tables of say less than 1m., one with an extent size of say 1m for tables less than say 100m and so on.

So for two different reasons I'd suggest option 2, backup and recovery and sensible division of db objects by size.

The final reason for multiple datafiles (to spread IO) depends entirely on how many disks you have which you don't tell us, but in general small datafiles spread across multiple disks will give better performance than large datafiles on single disks.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
"EP" <ep_at_plusnet.pl> wrote in message news:al5qmj$k2o$1_at_news2.tpi.pl...


> Hi,

>

> Oracle 8.1.7 database - size ca. 100 GB

> Windows 2000 Advanced Server - NTFS

>

> What is the better solution:

> 1. few large datafiles

> 2. numerous relatively small datafiles (max. 2 GB)

>

> In case of the first solution - how do you think- what is the "safe" size

 of


> such large datafile in Windows  ?

>

> TIA

> EP

>

>

>

>

>