File system block size?

I'm getting a result of 8192 on my iPhone 3GS, I thought it was 4096? It's also telling my app it has over 3GB of space to play in, I thought it was limited to 2GB. Have things changed with the 3GS? Just making sure I'm reading the right information...
TIA

Hello uastouja
If you contact support and create an incident Support can review your situation and if needed provide you with a samba configuration script and the samba custom config SDK app. The allocations usually can be managed using a global script, however some samba scripts would need to be configured per share.
The other lenovo forum thread we have been referring to goes over this already. This is the recommended action regarding the issue you are having. Again if it does not work for you, then you can consider using the unit as a iSCSI target ( you would need to have one of your windows servers connect to the iSCSI LUN(s) and then share them from that point). You can also contact support and submit a feature request if you feel the need.
LenovoEMC Contact Information is region specific. Please select the correct link then access the Contact Us at the top right:
US and Canada: https://lenovo-na-en.custhelp.com/
Latin America and Mexico: https://lenovo-la-es.custhelp.com/
EU: https://lenovo-eu-en.custhelp.com/
India/Asia Pacific: https://lenovo-ap-en.custhelp.com/
http://support.lenovoemc.com/

Similar Messages

Database Block Size Smaller Than Operating System Block Size

Finding that your database block size should be in multiples of your operating system block size is easy...
But what if the reverse of the image below were the case?
What happens when you store an Oracle Data Block that is 2 KB in an 8 KB Operating System Block? Does it waste 6 KB or are there 4 Oracle Data Blocks stored in 1 Operating System Block?
Is it different if you use ASM?
I'd like to introduce a 2 KB block size into a RAC Exadata environment for a small set of highly transactional tables and indexes to reduce contention on blocks being requested in the Global Cache. I've witnessed horrendous wait times for a plethora of sessions when a block was highly active.
One index in particular has a column that indicates the "state" of the record, it is a very dense index. Records will flood in, and then multiple processes will poll, do work, and change the state of the record. The record eventually reaches a final state and is never updated again.
I know that I can fill up the block with fluff by adjusting the percent free, percent used, and initrans, but that seems like a lazy hack to me and I'd like to do it right if possible.
Any thoughts or wisdom is much appreciated.
"The database requests data in multiples of data blocks, not operating system blocks."
"In contrast, an Oracle block is a logical storage structure whose size and structure are not known to the operating system."
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25789/logical.htm#BABDCGIB

But what if the reverse of the image below were the case?
What happens when you store an Oracle Data Block that is 2 KB in an 8 KB Operating System Block? Does it waste 6 KB or are there 4 Oracle Data Blocks stored in 1 Operating System Block?
Is it different if you use ASM?
I'd like to introduce a 2 KB block size into a RAC Exadata environment for a small set of highly transactional tables and indexes to reduce contention on blocks being requested in the Global Cache. I've witnessed horrendous wait times for a plethora of sessions when a block was highly active.
One index in particular has a column that indicates the "state" of the record, it is a very dense index. Records will flood in, and then multiple processes will poll, do work, and change the state of the record. The record eventually reaches a final state and is never updated again.
I know that I can fill up the block with fluff by adjusting the percent free, percent used, and initrans, but that seems like a lazy hack to me and I'd like to do it right if possible.
Any thoughts or wisdom is much appreciated.
"The database requests data in multiples of data blocks, not operating system blocks."
"In contrast, an Oracle block is a logical storage structure whose size and structure are not known to the operating system."
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25789/logical.htm#BABDCGIB
You could have answered your own questions if you had just read the top of the page in that doc you posted the link for
>
At the finest level of granularity, Oracle Database stores data in data blocks. One logical data block corresponds to a specific number of bytes of physical disk space, for example, 2 KB. Data blocks are the smallest units of storage that Oracle Database can use or allocate.
An extent is a set of logically contiguous data blocks allocated for storing a specific type of information. In Figure 12-2, the 24 KB extent has 12 data blocks, while the 72 KB extent has 36 data blocks.
>
There isn't any 'wasted' space using 2KB Oracle blocks for 8KB OS blocks. As the doc says Oracle allocates 'extents' and an extent, depending on your space management, is going to be a substantial multiple of blocks. You might typically have extents that are multiples of 64 KB and that would be 8 OS blocks for your example. Yes - it is possible that the very first OS block and the very last block might not map exactly to the Oracle blocks but for a table of any size that is unlikely to be much of an issue.
The single-block reads used for some index accesses could affect performance since the read of a 2K Oracle block will result in an 8K OS block being read but that 8K block is also likely to be part of the same index.
The thing is though that an index entry that is 'hot' is going to be hot whether the block it is in is 2K or 8K so any 'contention' for that entry will exist regardless of the block size.
You will need to conduct tests using a 2K (or other) block and cache size for your index tablespaces and see which gives you the best results for your access patterns.
You should use the standard block size for ALL tablespaces unless you can substantiate the need for a non-standard size. Indexes and LOB storage are indeed the primary use cases for uses non-standard block sizes for one or more tablespaces. Don't forget that you need to allocate the appropriate buffer cache.

Operating system block size

what's operating system block size?
and where can i change it?

Hi,
Maybe the following might be helpful;
Re: How to know the OS block size ?
Adith

How to get current local file system volume sizes information from OMS?

Hi
I know I can get this information from the table SYSMAN.MGMT$STORAGE_REPORT_LOCALFS.
But info stored in this table is not always up to date, but when going to the page em/console/monitoring/hostFilesystemOverview$target=xxxhostnamexxx$type=host$pageType=current$ctxType=Hosts the information is current.
I have accessed mentioned table in apex, from outside OMS, I would like to have current information instead of old.
How to do that?
Thanks

I think that there is nothing wrong with this table, just that the data is not collected every 5 minutes or so, only on a daily basis.
But as ca107207 said - when you go to the page, showing information about the files system, from the host home page - the data is up to date to the current second.
Therefore I think that OMS ask agent to send this value, but it is then not stored anywhere.
My question would be how to ask agent from outside OMS to get this information?
I have done a little reverse engineering on OMS packages and there should be a way to get this, using some procedures, pl/sql code with generating some cursors etc.
I'm not that good in pl/sql to create something like that, it would take too much time for me. I think that it can't be done without OMS at all, I just have another database with apex on the same host and apex display some information for other users about the file systems etc. It would be nice to have information about file system usage current.
Thanks

Oracle Block Size - question for experts

Hi ,
For years i thought that my system block size was 8K.
Lately due to an HPUX Bug i found that the file system block size is gust .... 1K
(HP DocId: DCLKBRC00006913 fstyp(1m) returns unexpected block size (f_bsize) for VXFS )
My instance is currently 10204 but previously was 7.3 --> 8 --> 8174 --> 10204.
Since its old instance its block size is gust 4kb.
We are planing to create new file system block size of 8k.
The instance size is about 2 TB.
Creating the whole database with 8 kb is impossible since its 24*7 instance.
Do you think that i sould move gust few important tables to a new tablespace with 8k block size , or should i leave it with 4 kb ?
Thanks

Given that your Oracle Database Block_Size (4K) is a multiple of the FileSystem Block_Size (1K), there should be no inherent significant issue, as such.
Yes, it would have been nice to have an 8KB Oracle Database Block_Size but whether you should recreate your FileSystems to 8KB is a difficult question. There would be implications on PreFetch that the OS does and on how the underlying Storage (must be a SAN, I presume) handles those requests.
A thorough test (if you can setup a test environment for 2TB such that it does NOT share the same HW, doesn't complicate PreFetches in the existing SAN) would be well adviced.
Else, check with HP and Veritas support if there are known issues and/or any Desupport plans for this combination ?!
Oracle, obviously, would have issues with Index Key Length sizes if the Block Size is 4KB. Presumably you do not need to add any new indexes with very large keys.
Having said that, you would have read all those posts about how Oracle doesn't (or really does ?) test every different block-size ! However, Oracle had, before 8i, been using 2K and 4K block sizes. Except that the new features (LMT, ASSM etc) may not have been well tested.
Since you upgraded from 7.3 in place without changing the Block_Size, I would venture to say that your database is still using Dictionary Managed and Manual Allocation and Segment Space Management Manual ?
Hemant K Chitale
http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com

Concerning oracle single block io call and os block size!!

Hi, all
The block size of my db(10gr2) is 8k, and
the db is on the raw device file system on a aix machine.
OS block size is 512k.
How much block will be read from disk when a single oracle io call occurs?
Which one is currect, 8K or 512K?
If the block size for a single io call depends on the os block size (512k),
I think os block size need to be tuned for oracle block size (8k).
If we use raw device file system, os level block size has no meaning??
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards.

Hi,
Please refer to the following oracle doc:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b32009/appa_aix.htm
extract from it:
Setting the Database Block Size
You can configure Oracle Database block size for better Input-Output throughput. On AIX, you can set the value of the DB_BLOCK_SIZE initialization parameter to between 2 KB and 32 KB, with a default of 4 KB. If Oracle Database is installed on a journaled file system, then the block size should be a multiple of the file system block size (4 KB on JFS, 16 K to 1 MB on GPFS). For databases on raw partitions, Oracle Database block size is a multiple of the operating system physical block size (512 bytes on AIX).
Thanks and Regards,
Raj K.

Optimum block size

DBA should determine the optimum block size considering OS file system buffer size and database usage. WHY?

Why? Because it's a setting during the Oracle installation. Who else could determine it?
Whether a DBA should choose something non-default however isn't as definite as your query suggests.It can only be determined depending upon the type of application you're running. The recommendation varies between OLTP,OLAP and DSS applications.
[http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/Oracle_database_FAQ]
[http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28310/create005.htm]
[http://www.ixora.com.au/tips/block_size.htm]
HTH
Anantha

Please Advise on SAP and DB2 file system during installation

Dear Experts
SAP ERP 6.0 EHP5 ( AS ABAP and AS JAVA(EP))
DB2
RHEL 6
i have a requirment to install solution manager,development and production server, at present client is allocated below hardware for 3 servers and one MSA Storage
Landscape: Two system landscape
DEV Server: 2*300GB HDD 2cpu/32gb ram
PRD server: 2*300GB HDD 2cpu/32gb ram
solution manger: 2*300GB HDD 1cpu/16gb ram
MSA Storage HP P2000 G3 MSA 12*300Gb HDD
1 TAPE DEVICE
these three server should to connected to storage
Its my first time to work on this kind of landscape with SAN
Request to please provide me filesytems and mountpoint with size. However i am going through standardinst document & trying to understand...
Regards
Raju

RAJU83 wrote:
> Request to please provide me filesytems and mountpoint with size. However i am going through standardinst document & trying to understand...
Better you continue with that and plan and document the file system and size strategy.
'SAP Sizing' is very important, utilize it - service.sap.com/sizing
After you understand the guides' advice and explore standard sizing, then share your queries with us.
This concept is very detailed one and really the 'subjective' one - depends case to case - customer to customer - ultimately the SIZING will help you - It can't be explained clearly in a discussion thread 'initially'
Thanks

File System Layout

Hi
can anybody tell me is there any transaction code or table corresponding to file system layout .For example it should contain details like file system(path) size and mount.
thanks in advance

HI Jasmine
For application server files, please check if transaction AL11 can help you.
Kind Regards
Eswar

ORA-27046: file size is not a multiple of logical block size

Hi All,
Getting the below error while creating Control File after database restore. Permission and ownership of CONTROL.SQL file is 777 and ora<sid>:dba
ERROR -->
SQL> !pwd
/oracle/SID/sapreorg
SQL> @CONTROL.SQL
ORACLE instance started.
Total System Global Area 3539992576 bytes
Fixed Size                  2088096 bytes
Variable Size            1778385760 bytes
Database Buffers         1744830464 bytes
Redo Buffers               14688256 bytes
CREATE CONTROLFILE SET DATABASE "SID" RESETLOGS ARCHIVELOG
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01503: CREATE CONTROLFILE failed
ORA-01565: error in identifying file
'/oracle/SID/sapdata5/p11_19/p11.data19.dbf'
ORA-27046: file size is not a multiple of logical block size
Additional information: 1
Additional information: 1895833576
Additional information: 8192
Checked in target system init<SID>.ora and found the parameter db_block_size is 8192. Also checked in source system init<SID>.ora and found the parameter db_block_size is also 8192.
/oracle/SID/102_64/dbs$ grep -i block initSID.ora
Kindly look into the issue.
Regards,
Soumya

Please chk the following things
1.SPfile corruption :
Startup the DB in nomount using pfile (ie init<sid>.ora) create spfile from pfile;restart the instance in nomount state
Then create the control file from the script.
2. Check Ulimit of the target server , the filesize parameter for ulimit shud be unlimited.
3. Has the db_block_size parameter been changed in init file by any chance.
Regards
Kausik

How increase external disk size used for an existing file system, Solaris10

Configuration:
Server: Sun T5220
S/O: Solaris 10 5/08 s10s_u5wos_10 SPARC
Storage: EMC AX4-5
EMC PowerPath: PowerPath Version 5.2
I have the following scenario:
In AX4-5 storage array, I created two LUNs into RAID Group 10, with Raid Type1/0:
LUN 101: 20Gb
LUN 102: 10Gb
Both LUNs were added to Storage Group (SG1) that includes two Servers (Server1 and Server2); both servers have Operating System Solaris 10 5/8 and Power Path.
The servers detect both LUNs across two paths. With Power Path were created a virtual path (emcpower0a, emcpower1a) to access to each LUNs respectively.
We have mounted two file system /home/tes1 over emcpower0a -> LUN101 and /home/tes2 over emcpower1a -> LUN102.
Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/dsk/emcpower0a 20G 919M 19G 5% /home/test1
/dev/dsk/emcpower1a 10G 9G 1G 90% /home/test2
I want to increase the space in file system /home/test2, without lost the information that I have stored and using the same LUN, LUN 102. To do this I start with the following steps:
1- Create new LUN, LUN 103 with 15Gb into RAID Group 10. Result: OK, I have available space in RAID Group 10.
2- Add LUN 103 to LUN 102, using concatenation option. Result: OK. This action creates a new metaLUN with the same characteristics of LUN 102, but with new space of 25Gb.
After to do these actions, I want to know how Solaris recognize this new space. What I need to do, to increase the size of file system /home/test2 to 25 Gb. Is that possible?
I reviewed the description of each disk using format command, and the disks not have any change.
Could anyone help me? If you need more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks in advance.

Robert, thank a lot for your know how. You helped me to clarify some doubts. To complete your answer, I will add two more details, based on my experience.
After to execute, type -> auto configure and label, the disk was created with different partitions like root, swap, usr, like this:
Volume name = < >
ascii name = <DGC-RAID10-0223 cyl 49150 alt 2 hd 32 sec 12>
pcyl = 49152
ncyl = 49150
acyl = 2
nhead = 32
nsect = 12
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 0 - 682 128.06MB (683/0/0) 262272
1 swap wu 683 - 1365 128.06MB (683/0/0) 262272
2 backup wu 0 - 49149 9.00GB (49150/0/0) 18873600
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 usr wm 1366 - 49149 8.75GB (47784/0/0) 18349056
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
This was not convenient because all information stored appear in the first slice and growfs not work if appear root or swap slice into the disk, for that reason was necesary to recreate manually every slice with partition command. The final result was this:
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 unassigned wm 0 - 49149 9.00GB (49150/0/0) 18873600
1 unassigned wu 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
2 backup wu 0 - 49149 9.00GB (49150/0/0) 18873600
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
Now, execute again the label command to save the new information.
Mount file system and execute:
growfs M file_system mount_point to expand the file system to 9Gb.

Regarding increasing root file system size

Hi folks,
I need urgent help regarding increasing the rool file system size from 40gb to 72 gb by decreasing swap from 64gb to 32gb with out any loss.
please find the current partiton config:
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 6595 - 10787 40.69GB (4193/0/0) 85335936
1 swap wm 2 - 6594 64.00GB (6595/0/0) 134221440
2 backup wm 0 - 14086 136.71GB (14087/0/0) 286698624
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 10788 - 14050 32.01GB (3298/0/0) 67120896
6 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
i need to change this like below.
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 3299 - 10787 72.69GB (4193/0/0) 152446656
1 swap wm 2 - 3298 32.00GB (3298/0/0) 67110720
2 backup wm 0 - 14086 136.71GB (14087/0/0) 286698624
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 10788 - 14086 32.01GB (3298/0/0) 67120896
6 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
kin dlyhelp me on this....
Thanks in advance,
Prathap

Sorry, can't be done.
If it was any other filesystem than root, you could do by using SVM.
But root filesystems can't be stripes or concats. Only simple mirrors.
So SVM isnt going to work.
If the spare space was after the partiton. You might have been able to do it by the "dirty" method of manually expanding the partition and using
growfs to expand it. You would have had to do it by netbooting or cd booting since growfs can't be used on the current root.
But in any case, you can't do that either since the space if before the partition not after it.
So, reinstalling is your only option..
Well, If you have a spare disk, you might be able to copy the filesystem over to a larger partition on the other disk, growfs it and boot off that instead.
You'd want to try it on a test systen first...

Required "/" (root) file system size on UNIX for Solution Manager.

Hello SAP Gurus,
   I am setting up SAP Solution Manager 3.2 on HP-UX. It is asking me about 350MB free sapce on "/" file system for Central Instance installation and about 120MB free sapce on "/" file system for Database Instance installation.
   I am installaing everything on to shared disk which mounted under /usr/sap. Why it needs free sapce in "/" file system. Is there any workaround to get rid of this requirement, as I have very less free sapce on "/" file system and I don't want to take the risks involved in increasing this size.
   Are there any SAP recommended sizes for "/" file system?
   I stuck in the middle of setting up SAP landscape on HP-UX (11.23). I searched through the Installation documents but I couldn't find any thing helpful in this regard. It is urgent requirement to set up this so please let me know any solution or workaround ASAP.
   Any help is greatly appriciated.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
cvr/

Hi Vaibhav.
Normally "canonical path not available for (folder name)" means:
1. Wrong username/password. Please double check you credentials.
2. The resource cannot be linked from the portal server. Please be sure that you can connect to the next ports in windows server from the Unix Server:
a. NetBIOS Session Service TCP 139 This port is used to connect file shares for example.
b. TCP 445 The SMB (Server Message Block) protocol is used among other things for file sharing in Windows NT/2000/XP. In windows NT it ran on top of NetBT (NetBIOS over TCP/IP), which used the famous ports 137, 138 (UDP) and 139 (TCP). In Windows 2000/XP/2003, Microsoft added the possibility to run SMB directly over TCP/IP, without the extra layer of NetBT. For this they use TCP port 445.
I hope these things help somebody.
Best Regards,
Jheison A. Urzola H.

Best Block Size in Raid for Photo files

I am setting up my two drive striped RAID 0 and came to a screeching halt at the raid block size.
This RASID is strictly for photo scans and PS CS2 photo files, mostly high res, some medium JPEGs.
Adobe says PS CS2's default block size in 64K, if I can believe the technical support guy, who said it off the top of his head, after not understanding what I was talking about.
Apple Tech support first knew nothing about it. Then, after checking all over for quite some time, said 32K is adequate for what I am doing but 64K is alright. In other words, he said nothing.
What would be the best block size for my purpose and why.
One scan file size that I just checked is 135.2MB, another 134.6 MB and that is typical. JPEGs are, of course, smaller, ca 284 KB. Photos with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II run 9mb up to 200mb after processing. No other tyhpes of files will be on this drive.
What would be the ideal block size and why?
Thanks much,
Mark

The default 32K is for small random I/O pattern of a server. Use 128/256K for audio and video files. And 64K for workstation use.
the larger block size gives the best performance for sequential I/O. Someone mentioned an AMUG review of CS2 tests that showed that 64K.
Because this is probably a scratch volume, you could always test for yourself, and rebuild the RAID later and try a different scheme. Sometimes that is the best way to match your drives, your workflow, and system. There are a couple CS2 scripts and benchmark utilities to help get an idea of how long each step or operation takes.

Fit into block in file system

I am developing a external r-tree and it's optimal to fit one node into one disk block.
The question is: how can I make sure that one node fit into one block, instead of using half of the first block and half of the second block, when using file system?
And more, if a node need 2.6 blocks, should I use 3 blocks and leave 0.4 block in empty,so the next node could start from a new block?

You should be able to obtain some pretty good performance improvements if your cache implementation
is tuned to the block size of the underlying file system.
If your cache pages are larger then the block size then you may end up having to perform multiple disk
head moves to fill a cache page or to flush it to disk (this is especially true if the file is fragmented).
If your cache pages are smaller then the block size then you may end up having to read the same block
multiple times when a larger page size would have resulted in a single read.
Most of this is only really an issue if you force writes to the disk (don't let the OS cache the writes) and
whether you do that depends on the task you are performing.
Don't even consider serailization (unless you have to ) as it is relativly CPU intensive and produces
data of an unknown size. This means that you cannot perform the tuning.
Many database style programs read and cache pages (or frames) of memory. The application then fills
in the pages with whatever data is needed. (basically it takes the same amount of time to flush a block to
disk as it does to flush a part of a block to disk).
matfud

File system block size?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for