Should I change CCM database's page size when upgrade RTC from 2.x to 3.x/4.x
Now I'm upgrading RTC server from 3.0 to 4.0.
And I found that my RTC server's JAZZ(CCM) database's page size is 8K.
Is it OK? Should I change page size of JAZZ database from 8K to 16K?
In our case,
1) First , I installed RTC 2.0.0.2 and set JAZZ database's page size 8K.
2) Next, I upgraded RTC from 2.0.0.2 to 3.0. JAZZ database's page size had been left 8K.
3) Now, I'm upgrading RTC from 3.0 to 4.0. After upgrade 4.0, JAZZ database's page size is still 8K.
I'm not sure ... should I change page size after upgrading 3.0 ?
(but , I'm not sure, it seemed work fine after upgrade 3.0 from 2.0.0.2 with 8k page size)
I found similer question, but there is no answer.
https://jazz.net/forum/questions/53453/migrade-2x-to-30
Accepted answer
Comments
I looked this up for MS SQL and see the following answer (not related to RTC):
"SQL Server does not allow the page size to be changed - it is a fixed 8k in size with a fixed size header / data section."
So, does the above answer not apply to MS SQL? Am I going to have issues with MS SQL and RTC 4.x? Or is the quote I found incorrect?
1 vote
@mshkolnik: thanks for pointing that out. The 16K page size is correct for DB2. I don't believe SQL Server has requirement.
The best way to determine whether your database is configured correctly for your version is to see the help topic "Setting up the database" for your RTC version. It will describe the correct way each database vendor should be configured. For RTC 4.0 SQL Server, see here.
Hi, sorry for bringing this old topic back to life. I'm currently upgrading from RTC2 to RTC3 (as preparation for the RTC4 upgrade) and just stumbled over the note that page size should be increased to 16K. However my DBA tells me this cannot be done in DB2 (except for creating a new tablespace with a bigger size and moving every single table to that new tablespace). What are we missing here?
... or is it implied here that a repotools export / import into a new DB with 16K pagesize is required, instead of upgrading the DB in place?