RE: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.

  • From: "Jesse, Rich" <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxx>
  • To: "William B Ferguson" <wbfergus@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:34:32 -0500

I should have mentioned that we're using an IBM SVC front ending a bunch
of SANs, so I don't believe I/O will be an issue in this case.  :)
 
Thanks for the input!
 
Rich

________________________________

From: William B Ferguson [mailto:wbfergus@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:30 AM
To: Jesse, Rich
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB (datafile limit)? That is the question.



I don't think so. The only real reason I can see would be it's easier
and faster to restore two or three 'corrupt' files of 2GB than a whole
100GB file, but in the Oracle environment, that probably doesn't make
any difference, as you'd still probably need to restore all of the
associated 2 GB files for that tablespace, and multiple small files take
longer than one large file. 

It might make a difference with many disks, as you could have the
smaller files (even if they were 25 GB), spread across multiple disks,
so multiple reads could be accomplished faster, instead of back and
forth within the same file on the same disk (or am I dating myself
here?). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

                              Bill Ferguson
           U.S. Geological Survey - Minerals Information Team
                          PO Box 25046, MS-750
                          Denver Federal Center
                         Denver, Colorado 80225
          Voice (303)236-8747 ext. 321     Fax   (303)236-4208
     ~ Think on a grand scale, start to implement on a small scale ~ 



"Jesse, Rich" <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxx> 
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

09/08/2006 08:16 AM 
Please respond to
Rich.Jesse@xxxxxx


To
<oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
cc
Subject
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
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l



Other related posts: