f



Why the size of Oracle 10g database is much smaller than Oracle 9i?

Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
disk spaces.
Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
users?

Please advise. Thanks!!
0
jrefactors (362)
11/15/2004 3:12:55 AM
comp.databases.oracle.server 22978 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

12 Replies
2012 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 42

"Matt" <jrefactors@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba8a039e.0411141912.71c7d598@posting.google.com...
> Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
> disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
> disk spaces.
> Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
> on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
> in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
> users?
>
> Please advise. Thanks!!
They refactored it and made it a lot more efficient and smaller.
Jim


0
11/15/2004 3:43:41 AM
Matt wrote:

> Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
> disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
> disk spaces.
> Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
> on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
> in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
> users?
> 
> Please advise. Thanks!!

Actually, to get the same set of options and add-ons you still end up with 3
disks (or more) although only the DB disk seems totally filled.  For
example, what is now the "Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control" on a
separate disk is effectively the same (in concept) as the Oracle Management
Server and related pieces in 9i which was part of the 9i 3-disk set.

They repackaged it so you could get away with 1 disk for a base install.  I
suspect they may have found some redundant files during the repackaging as
well.

I know around here people were complaining about how many disks it takes to
install Oracle.  Now (thanks to the whiners?) it takes fewer disk for each
of a lot more different installs.   Win some, lose some?   All I know is
that the onus is now on us to remember to start each of those installs from
a different source.

However, the change in disk layout and packaging is as nothing compared to
the significant improvements in technology.  For that, I refer you to the
documentation, especially the Concepts and the New Features manuals which
detail the answers to the next logical set of questions.

/Hans
0
News.Hans (974)
11/15/2004 4:21:36 AM
"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily@attbi.net> wrote in message news:<hAVld.40974$5K2.16424@attbi_s03>...

> They refactored it and made it a lot more efficient and smaller.

either that or they learned how to compress their distro...
0
wizofoz2k (1386)
11/15/2004 9:07:39 AM
so what is g stands for? Grid?
0
jrefactors (362)
11/15/2004 5:30:07 PM
"Matt" <jrefactors@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ba8a039e.0411150930.394a3741@posting.google.com...
> so what is g stands for? Grid?

yup 


0
Dave
11/15/2004 6:44:23 PM
Matt wrote:
> so what is g stands for? Grid?

Yup. And potentially beating you to your next question: 
http://www.dizwell.com/html/what_is_the_grid_.html

Regards
HJR
0
hjr (2065)
11/15/2004 7:32:20 PM
On 14 Nov 2004 19:12:55 -0800, Matt wrote:

> Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
> disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
> disk spaces.
> Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
> on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
> in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
> users?
> 
> Please advise. Thanks!!

They only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even though
0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took up more
space.
0
bdick (64)
11/16/2004 7:59:46 PM
Brian Dick <bdick@cox.net> wrote in message news:<kph48bk7nolx$.1dyli46ofitkf.dlg@40tude.net>...
> They only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even though
> 0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took up more
> space.

Now, THAT is compression!
0
wizofoz2k (1386)
11/17/2004 1:37:40 AM
On 16 Nov 2004 17:37:40 -0800, wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote:

>Brian Dick <bdick@cox.net> wrote in message news:<kph48bk7nolx$.1dyli46ofitkf.dlg@40tude.net>...
>> They only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even though
>> 0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took up more
>> space.
>
>Now, THAT is compression!

Of course, now you have to buy the supplementary zero kit.  It's
included in the Enterprise Edition license, but is an extra cost item
for Standard Edition licensees.

And Patch #73.b  is required to fix the routine that merges the zeros
back in to the installed binaries.
0
nospam3370 (313)
11/17/2004 1:31:14 PM
Ed Stevens wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2004 17:37:40 -0800, wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote:
>
>>Brian Dick <bdick@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<kph48bk7nolx$.1dyli46ofitkf.dlg@40tude.net>...
>>> They only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even
> though
>>> 0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took
> up more
>>> space.
>>
>>Now, THAT is compression!
>
> Of course, now you have to buy the supplementary zero kit.  It's
> included in the Enterprise Edition license, but is an extra cost item
> for Standard Edition licensees.
>
> And Patch #73.b  is required to fix the routine that merges the zeros
> back in to the installed binaries.

In fact the first patch set for 10g on Solaris is 648MB in Size (IIRC).
Maybe that's the other half of the software. :-)


-- 
Lothar Armbr´┐Żster       | la@oktagramm.de
Hauptstr. 26            | la@heptagramm.de
D-65346 Eltville        | lothar.armbruester@t-online.de
0
11/17/2004 5:52:27 PM
Ed Stevens wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2004 17:37:40 -0800, wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Brian Dick <bdick@cox.net> wrote in message news:<kph48bk7nolx$.1dyli46ofitkf.dlg@40tude.net>...
>>
>>>They only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even though
>>>0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took up more
>>>space.
>>
>>Now, THAT is compression!
> 
> 
> Of course, now you have to buy the supplementary zero kit.  It's
> included in the Enterprise Edition license, but is an extra cost item
> for Standard Edition licensees.
> 
> And Patch #73.b  is required to fix the routine that merges the zeros
> back in to the installed binaries.

Unless you have this special release, that has the 1's flipped on the
side, and stuck throught the 0's; same amount of compression, but
all the data - just ask Metalink about 10gs.

-- 

Regards,
Frank van Bortel
0
fvanbortel (757)
11/18/2004 5:06:18 PM
Matt wrote:
> so what is g stands for? Grid?
stands for GREED ;)
you want next disk ? pay up you basta !
0
rchin5313 (37)
11/20/2004 12:52:03 AM
Reply: