RE: Important note about asynchronous commit
- From: "Jesse, Rich" <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxx>
- To: "Oracle-L Freelists" <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:51:20 -0500
This thread leads me to a question. Does the Unix syncer come into play
when direct IO is used? I believe it does with most FS caching, which
means that even synchronous writes can't really be guaranteed, doesn't
it? At least that's what I was lead to believe...
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hemant K Chitale
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:28 AM
To: juancarlosreyesp@xxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Re: Important note about asynchronous commit
I wouldn't know how to write a very reliable application that guarantees
that it IS ALWAYS able to replay transactions in case of Instance
failure.
=== oh yes ! There is one such : The Oracle RDBMS Engine itself.
To date (except for one particular buggy 6.0.28 (or was it 6.0.29 ?)
release),
I have seen Oracle Instances CRASH AND RECOVER consistently.
Play around with the guaranteed mechanism and you are playing
dangerous with your data.
[snip]
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
