RE: High disk capacity dangers
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F \(LABOR\)" <Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <fred_fred_1@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:13:06 -0400
I'd be curious to know what number he feels is "ok". 90%? And why?
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred Smith
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:05 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: High disk capacity dangers
Just wanted to run this by everyone here, I have a 9.2.0.6 database on
HP-UX. Some of my read only tablespaces are on a physical disk that I
keep
at about 99% capacity (it's not going to grow obviously, it's
read-only).
The new Unix SA is saying that it's unacceptable and dangerous to keep a
disk at 98,99, or 100% capacity. I always thought it could be even at
100%
capacity without any problems.
Is there any reason that anyone knows of as to why a disk should not be
at
99% or 100% capacity?
Thank you!
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
