RE: Enable 32K Block in 8K Block DB

I have yet to meet an Oracle Rep. who doesn't still insist that cooked files are better than raw. -----Original Message----- From: Howard J. Rogers [mailto:hjr@dizwell.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:56 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Enable 32K Block in 8K Block DB "David Williams" <djw@smooth1.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:c4stsg$h3$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:c4otl4$3fg$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > > Bottom line (still) is - don't use buffered IO; use direct or raw > > (why do you think every benchmark of oracle still uses raw?!?) > > Really Oracle benchmarks all use raw?...As an Informix person why did > I used to keep hearing > > "according to Oracle raw devices are not faster, in fact filesystems are > quicker" > > FROM MY CUSTOMERS than? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Used to really annoy me...so Oracle have come around to my way of > thinking than? > As it's faster? What a suprise... The discussion is not so much whether raw is faster or slower than a file system, on which the jury is still out. The issue here is: with a file system that does buffered I/O, am I free to choose any Oracle block size I like? (nope). Can I achieve performance gains by adopting multiple blocksizes within the one database? (nope). That's a completely different discussion than the one you seem to want to start. Regards HJR -- ------------------------------------------- Dizwell Informatics: http://www.dizwell.com -A mine of useful Oracle information- -Windows Laptop Rac- -Oracle Installations on Linux- =========================================== sending to informix-list