Problem solve Get help with specific problems with your technologies, process and projects.

Why is Oracle moving toward use of non-fragmented tablespaces?

I worked in Oracle Technical Support from 1989-1993. That was the time of the birth of Oracle 6 and Oracle 7, and hot backups. We espoused separating tablespaces by application, so that, in the case of a disk failure, a minimum number of users would be affected. Now, it seems like Oracle is moving away from that concept and into the concept of non-fragmented tablespaces, with LMT and uniform extent sizes. Is this due to the availability of disk redundancy, which practically eliminates the issue of disk failure, or is it because they have found fragmentation to be a major issue in terms of performance and/or cost, or combination of these and other factors?

Well, you are right about the non-fragmented tablespaces, but this is as much about the super-large disk spindles as it is about Oracle's SAME (Stripe and Mirror Everywhere) philosophy. With the smallest disks now running 144 gigabytes, shops with numerous small databases often choose to put them on the same devices using RAID 1+0.

However, I wholeheartedly agree. Whenever possible, it's always a good idea to put the data for different applications on different disks!

Dig Deeper on Oracle database design and architecture

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.

Start the conversation

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.