RE: 10g show stoppers
- From: "Mark W. Farnham" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:13:37 -0400
I'll bite. I'm in general agreement with the notion of not separating out
each possible widget because you die a death by factorial pretty quickly.
On the other hand, for ASM, you might want to drag behind a bit, since if
you're using ASM and the ASM instance gets trashed you lose all your data.
So consider a lab machine where you run ASM. I'm still thinking you might
want to check out the new features other than ASM without destabilizing the
integrity of your file store.
What a slippery slope. Just thinking about it makes me think I'm up for
trading alternate shots of favorite beverages with Pete.
mwf
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Pete Sharman
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:41 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Peter Ross Sharman
Subject: RE: 10g show stoppers
Sorry, that doesn't make it for me. ASM is part of the kernel. If we plac=
ed every part of the kernel in a separate home just in case patches affecte=
d other parts of the kernel, we'd have to have a LOT of ORACLE_HOME's! :) =
=
If an ASM patch causes problems with other parts of the kernel, it's a bug =
and should be logged as such. The overhead I mentioned before doesn't seem=
(to me anyway) to warrant a separate install just in case that occurs. Ot=
hers, of course, may (and usually do!) have different opinions.
=
Pete
=
"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
=
"Oh no, it's not. It's much harder than that!"
Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =
On Behalf Of Rognes, Sten
Sent: Saturday, 3 July 2004 2:34 AM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: 10g show stoppers
>> ASM is part of the database kernel - if you want you can run the ASM
>> instance and the DB instance using ASM from the same software home.
Still=3D
>> I'd think most would want to maintain separate software homes for ASM
and=3D
>> databases.
>Forgive my obtuseness (it is after all 2 am and I haven't had my first
coff=3D
>ee yet), but why would you want to do this? All I can see this causing is=
=3D
>additional overhead in terms of two sets of software to maintain, install
a=3D
>nd so on. I can't see a single benefit to this.
Say you have to apply a patch to fix an ASM specific problem. Having a
separate OH for the ASM instance you wouldn't have to test/worry about what=
impact the ASM patch would have on your database. =
Sten
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
