RE: db_recovery_file_dest_size
- From: "Michael Fontana" <mfontana@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Robert Freeman'" <robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Allen, Brandon'" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:01:32 -0600 (CST)
_____
From: Robert Freeman [mailto:robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx]
>> but that just reinforces my point about the parameter's lack of
purpose.
>>>I disagree, the parameter has purpose. If you have a server with many
databaes on it, it serves to prevent one database from mindlessly filling
up a shared file system thus preventing all the databases
>>>from archiving and as a result bringing the whole world to a
screatching halt.
I would emphatically agree, were this universally true. However, there's
nothing forcing anyone to maintain FRAs for every database on a server in
the same location. In fact, most agree it would be a bad practice.
There's inevitably going to be a database process on ONE of the databases
that is going to generate archivelogs and fill a shared FRA. It therefore
makes the whole concept of a shared FRA a very bad idea. Even short of
using one, though, my experience in consulting is that almost everyone,
when confronted with the mandatory nature of this parameter, will simply
'set and forget' it. As time goes by, their database(s) grow, and they
have problems with FRA. The natural inclination is to add more space, and
forget about that nuisance parameter anyway. Eventually, a backup blows
up as a result.
>>>I would agree that an option to IGNORE or some such thing would be
nice.
Maybe in Oracle 13?
Other related posts:
