This is an archive of the Maximo Yahoo Community. The content of this pages may be a sometimes obsolete so please check post dates.
Thanks to the community owner Christopher Wanko for providing the content.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/140365
On Jul 19, 2016, at 15:43, Will Hampton <will.hampton@exxtremeconsulting.com<mailto:will.hampton@exxtremeconsulting.com>> wrote:
Probably thinking of block size on the fixed disks... It will have minimal affect as it shouldn't be reading the disk much...
(Assuming we are not talking about the dB)
;)
On Jul 19, 2016, at 15:21, therron@pcci.edu<mailto:therron@pcci.edu> [MAXIMO] <MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com<mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
Here's an odd one:
Our IT department is upgrading something and has asked me:
Can Maximo (6.2 on Windows 2003 Server) be moved from a 4K block drive to an 8K block drive to run more efficiently in <this virtualization thing they bought>?
Actually, I think he really meant to ask about a 64K block drive. Anyways, I can't think of a reason why it couldn't. Can anyone think of a reason this would be a problem?
Travis Herron
I was just reading through that document. Our server admins tell me that it won't be a problem for Windows 2003 nor for SQL Server 2005. I guess I was just asking if for some reason Maximo itself would care. I can't think of a reason that it would care. . .but was fishing for a second opinion here.
Travis Herron
Maximo doesn't care. You can let Oracle, for example, manage the entire file system. The optimization that your underlying OS and database find most effective, is the one you want.
-C
---In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, <therron@pcci.edu> wrote :
I was just reading through that document. Our server admins tell me that it won't be a problem for Windows 2003 nor for SQL Server 2005. I guess I was just asking if for some reason Maximo itself would care. I can't think of a reason that it would care. . .but was fishing for a second opinion here.