RE: Autoextend or not?
- From: <Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:19:22 -0400
I agree with Jared, that if space is not an issue, then you probably
won't encroach on the f/s size, (by which I figure f/s size means out of
space). I have 8K block sizes, so my files are not going to grow past
32Gbs, and if they did, well... another is going to be added, and if we
are up past 95% full, then the sysadmin is going to add another LUN.
Sometimes however when we begin to approach the 95% full mark and
beyond, somebody decides to run some ad hoc query or something and boom,
undo and/or temp explode out the door... By the time they run up to
8Gbs, I figure its time they failed (at least the first time) before
they eat up the next 24Gbs for nothing. Or worse they finish after
using say 30Gbs.
So, for now since I have not massive 'loading' of data, autoextend on is
working fine, and if needed limit the size of temp and undo to prevent
runaways.
Joel Patterson
Database Administrator
904 727-2546
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nuno Souto
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:09 PM
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Autoextend or not?
Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote,on my timestamp of 14/04/2009 3:25 AM:
> There is still an argument to be made however for limiting undo and
temp
> as these would be the most likely to run away, and if so, the fix
isn't
> to add more files.
My approach is to use autoextend to the point where it encroaches
on the file system size. IE: I set it to stop growing if the total
size gets near the f/s size. This way we've been able to trap
quite a few runaway processes before they did damage anything
while allowing everyone to sleep at night. Works for me.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
