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


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.


> -----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
> --
> //


Other related posts: