Dear Members I have been following the spfile pros / cons thread and there are many god arguments for not to use spfiles. Regarding the reason for making the spfile binary - Could it be RAC ? Since a binary file could reside on a raw device and therefor could be seen by all instances on a RAC's that does not have a clustered file system. I don't have a RAC to test this Just my 2 cents /peter Mogens Nørgaard wrote: >Ah, a real pro from the old days joins the list! > >For those of you who weren't there, Dom was THE replication hero of the >7.1.6 days. Only one who could make it work. > >He was the true 2iC of Cary's System Performance Group. I still recall >the Teach-The-Trainer (TTT) class for Replication in Dallas (I think - >or was it Atlanta?) with Dom on a conference call to answer our >questions, and the heavies from Education present to make sure it was >all going to be OK. > >Welcome, Dom. Good to have you on board. > >Mogens > >Delmolino, Dominic wrote: > > > >>My First Post, so newbie apologies in advance :-) >> >>We considered, and discarded, the idea of moving to full use of spfiles >>during our upgrade from 8i to 9i using the following reasoning: >> >>Pros >> >>- SPFILEs can be modified without the need to log into the server O/S >>- Online parameter changes could be captured for the next db restart >> >>Cons >> >>- We version control our init.ora files and the diff capability is >>useful >>- The ability to look at the parameter values prior to instance start is >> >> useful >>- You need permission to log into the server O/S in order to modify the=20 >> initialization parameters (security) >> >>The Cons were pretty important to us and the Pros seemed to have both >>security issues (we don't want any DBA to be able to modify the file, >>we want the added O/S security) and unintential consequence issues=20 >>(Change this parameter for this run -- don't fat-finger SCOPE=3DBOTH >>by accident). Since the old format was still supported, we stayed with >>it. >>(We did take the opportunity to thoroughly scrub the old files and ditch >> >>parameters for which we should have been using Oracle's defaults >>instead). >> >>I'm guessing that the reason a binary file was chosen was because the >>developer used some weird internal object to represent the parameters=20 >>(heck, it's probably a Java-serialized-object :-) and sold his/her >>management that it was necessary in order to achieve the Pros as listed >>above :-) ("Don't want those pesky DBA's messing up the file format"). >> >>Dominic Delmolino >> >> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >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 >----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Peter Gram comp : Miracle A/S Addr : Kratvej 2, 2760 Maaloev Phone : +45 2527 7107, Fax : +45 4466 8856, Home +45 3874 5696 mail : peter.gram@xxxxxxxxxxxx - http://www.miracleas.dk Upcoming events: DBF2004 28-30 oktober 2004 Visit http://www.miracleas.dk fore news ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------