RE: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.
- From: "Eric Buddelmeijer" <Eric.Buddelmeijer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:32:30 +0200
Jesse,
IMHO the only remaining valid reason for reduced size of datafiles is speed
of (partial) recovery. If your datafiles are not to large you can restore a
modest number of GB from tape and be done with it.
But 2GB is too small for even that. I currently work mostly with datafiles
of 8GB with databases in the range of 100-500GB. And I think I could very
well live with datafiles of 32GB.
Regards,
Eric.
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Jesse, Rich
> Verzonden: vrijdag 8 september 2006 16:17
> Aan: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.
>
> Many moons ago, way back in the 32-bit era when Y2K was a
> looming nightmare, I had instituted a policy that no Oracle
> datafile would be setup to grow larger than 2GB. This was
> due to some known bugs with files larger than 2GB on many
> platforms/filesystems at the time.
>
> As I'm now looking at a vendor's ERP installation, I was
> about to reduce their max datafile size from 32GB to 2GB when
> I asked myself "Why?". Is there any valid sane reason to do
> this anymore? I do not expect the DB size to grow beyond a
> modest 100GB in the next two years. The server is an IBM P5
> blade running AIX5.3 and using JFS filesystems. Other
> similar servers with other DBs (e.g. Sybase) currently handle
> db files in the 100's of GB with no problem.
>
> I don't see any need to limit the datafile size to 2GB
> anymore. Anyone else?
>
> TIA,
> Rich
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
