Hi Ron,
It's done. You're Party member # 42 - with a special obligation to know the
Answer to RAID-5, of course.
Three members have socalled red numbers that will remain guaranteed constant
for as long as we can keep them constant. They are:
Carel-Jan Engels (#11)
Leif Knudsen (#13)
and now
RAID-5 microkernel has more lines of code then Oracle7? Wow! This is an
astonishing piece of information and if it wasn't coming from you, I'd
dismiss it as yet another conspiracy theory.
On 2003.06.15 01:44, Cary Millsap wrote:
Meanwhile I have never understood why storage vendors would prefer
So, did you get the same error when writing the backup to /tmp as well ?
And also if you delete the previous backup and create a backup without the
REUSE ?
If the problem is really a Control File Enqueue timeout, is the server
really that busy ?
How about trying the controlfile backup at a time
If I remember correctly, [and I'm note sure how relevant this is here ...]
Oracle7 ODBC did not have a timeout
Oracle8 ODBC had a default timeout of 60seconds which was not modifiable
Oracle 8.1.5.a_certain_patch_level ODBC introduced an Enable/Disable
Timeout
Checkbox.
On my PC, Oracle
Which begs the question:
What is RAID-5 microkernel?
Jared
On Sunday 15 June 2003 00:49, Mladen Gogala wrote:
RAID-5 microkernel has more lines of code then Oracle7? Wow! This is an
astonishing piece of information and if it wasn't coming from you, I'd
dismiss it as yet another conspiracy
Mladen - I would propose another theory. Please consider this rant for
entertainment value, and hopefully to consider a book on this topic.
Usually companies request bids from several vendors. If you as a storage
salesperson always bid RAID1+0, you will always be underbid by your
competitors,
Dennis, to tell the truth, writing in oracle is not a big problem, as long
as the redo files are not on RAID-5. Everything else can reside on RAID-5
without a visible performance impact. Second, RAID-5 vendors like EMC and
Hitachi usually offer two versions of non-volatile cache: write-through one
Jared,
I hope this gets to you before you leave (since I don't know when you
are coming in)..
Thursday I can meet you anytime after 6. If you want to go to St.
Andrews, that's fine -- tell me what time and I'll make a reservation
for all of us. If you want to just stop in there for a drink and
Okay, now I KNOW I need a vacation
Sorry folks!
--- Rachel Carmichael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jared,
I hope this gets to you before you leave (since I don't know when you
are coming in)..
Thursday I can meet you anytime after 6. If you want to go to St.
Andrews, that's fine
Here's the sequence of steps I've seen...
1. The salesman who bids RAID5 configuration wins the business, as per
Dennis's story. He or she wins because the configuration requires fewer
disks than the alternative RAID10 configuration. The salesman gets a nice
commission and goes to his company's
It's the whole operating system that comes with a cached RAID5 system that
enables it to do the parity calculations, operation under partial outage
conditions, and take care of all the other hardware weirdnesses that RAID5
software has to handle.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
For complete disclosure, I didn't do the counting myself. The information
came to me from an Oracle kernel developer during a discussion in his office
at Redwood Shores.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Hotsos Clinic 101 in Dallas, Washington,
Stephen,
I really like your idea and it made me think of an easy extension... DB
Links. And if you can fit the word at into the table name then it might
even read right:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (a more tricky use of the syllable at)
Cheers,
Mark.
Hi List,
I have been asked to add a column to a table and populate it's contents.
Conceptually this is very easy but I'm concerned from a performance point
of view. Let me explain:
* The table currently has 160,000,000 rows in it, taking up ~37 GB (~370 x
100 MB extents).
* The rule for
14 matches
Mail list logo
