----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:04
PM
Subject: Re: Re: Difference on ArchiveLog
(I'm rewriting the question)
Hello everybody thank for your answers,
the size I'm talking about is summing up real sizes of archivelogs files,
and I had each configuration of redo logs for one week, and the first one was
for many months.
There was not any change on database objects and the database is
small, the summing up real sizes of datafiles is 13G.
I think It not should be happennig, because the archive generation
shouldn't be dependent on redolog size. But in this case yes (Could be an
Oracle 9i bug?) .
Regards
Mauricio Vélez
Tanel Poder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is your system overloaded e.g. there is a
continuous queue of transactions waiting?
In that case, with bigger redologs, full
checkpoints happen less frequently, allowing database to work faster, thus
generating more redo.
But, othervise, the archive generation
shouldn't be dependent on redolog size.
How are you measuring your archive size, just
counting number of files/entries from v$archived_log or summing up real
sizes of archivelogs? (´these may differ noticeably, especially when
frequent manual logswitches occur or archive_lag_target is
set).
Tanel.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004
10:49 PM
Subject: Difference on ArchiveLog
(I'm rewriting the question)
Hello Everybody
I’m rewriting the question,
Some days ago the database I work on had 3 logfiles
that sized 100M and the database was generating 4G of archive
daily.
I changed the
size to 20M and the database began to generate 2G of archive daily,
then I changed to 50M and It began to generate 3G of archive
daily.
I think I’ts not logical that archive size
change.
The database I'm working on is oracle 9i and I'is
on Windows NT.
Regards
Mauricio Vélez
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter
the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter
the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes