C
ChUIMonster
Guest
IMHO having extents that are limited to 2GB is kind of silly. You end up with a lots and lots of tiny little extents. How many storage areas do you have? You should have at least a few -- no end user data should be in the schema area. If you have end user data in the schema area fix that! At a minimum, you should have "data", "indexes", and "lobs" (if you have any lobs in your database). You say that the db is 100GB so that's big enough to have made it worth splitting out your larger and more active tables and their associated indexes. Usually a small number of tables are the bulk of the storage -- perhaps 5 to 10 tables are probably consuming 80% of the disk space (there are always exceptions but that is a general pattern that holds for a lot of people). That would mean that you might have 15 to 20 storage areas and that the larger ones might be 10GB or so. In that case I, personally, would be quite happy to use an "all variable" approach. I don't much like seeing 64GB variable extents but these days I also don't usually start creating fixed extents until I have at least 32GB of data in a storage area. For the record: the largest variable extent that I know of is just under 800GB. I'm not really very happy about that, it would be a pain in the neck to work with if it ever needs "dbrpr" style surgery. But getting permission to take care of it has proven "difficult" (it is the sort of customer where you *really* need permission). I've got alerts set to trigger as it grows -- I hear that hitting that 1TB limit is unrecoverably ugly.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...