RE: High disk capacity dangers
- From: "Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "Fred Smith" <fred_fred_1@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:23:22 -0400
Fred,
That's otherwise known as 11i. No I would not consider it a
concern, especially with 6GB of free space left. If that was 6KB that
might be a different story.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Smith [mailto:fred_fred_1@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Goulet, Dick; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: High disk capacity dangers
We're running HP-UX B.11.11 U 9000/800, so is this a concern in our
version?
Even at 99% capacity, I still have ~6GB free on the device.
Thanks.
>From: "Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
>To: <fred_fred_1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,<oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: High disk capacity dangers
>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:59:48 -0400
>
>HP has for many years stated that one should never push a mount point
>beyond 90% utilization. Back on HP-UX 8 that was a real concern
because
>if you did push it beyond that point because there was a definite
danger
>that the OS would foul up the mount point due to temporary utilization
>from the cache mechanism. I actually did loose a file because of it,
>thankfully not a database file. It was not uncommon to find a mount
>point reporting 101 or 105% utilization since they reserved 10% just in
>case. I believe that has been cured in later versions. We run HP-UX
11
>& 11i and do not have a problem in the 98 to 99% range, actually HP-UX
>complains bitterly today if you try to push it beyond 100%.
>
>So your SA is right, but wrong in that he's out of date, once again.
>
>
>-----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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
