>>>array. In both cases performance was fine and there were no "hot"
>>>disks. The logic for choosing 4 MB was to ensure that any
>>>full table scans (in our case 128 KB) would avoid having the
>>>multi-block reads split into two reads due to the required
>>>blocks existing in more than 1 "stripe".

a 4MB stripe width will reduce the odds there will be cross-stripe
reads, but in no way eliminates it. The planets do not align that
way.

>>>
>>>IMHO I'm not sure why IBM are recommending why you should go
>>>as large as 32 MB.

I'm still surprised to hear there is such a thing as a 32MB stripe
width on a DSXXXX array... maybe they meant 32KB (which would be a
trainwreck) ?

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l