Ok I think you guys have convinced me to use OMF. Now my next
question is do you create your database manually using scripts or use
DBCA. I have alway used DBCA, not really a big shop here. I like
the idea of creating the database manually using scripts but you have
to manually install components and features and I afraid I might
something that was needed.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name
would smell as sweet." -W. Shakespeare, "Romeo & Juliet", Act 2,
scene 2
Why do you prefer manual control of file naming? I recall
scripting space management and how much needless hassle was
involved in file naming and the irritation when someone on the
team deviated from the preferred convention. OMF has made all of
that moot, with zero downside.
One thing I recall from bucking OMF, at least from the 10g
timeframe; if you created a non-OMF file and then later drop the
tablespace without the clause "INCLUDING CONTENTS AND DATAFILES",
ASM would drop the alias but not the file itself. So, I
periodically had to go into ASMCMD and look for "orphaned" files
from tablespaces that had been dropped without the "INCLUDING"
clause; not sure if that is still an issue?
Regardless, it's useful to stop and think about why certain
preferences exist; sometimes they go obsolete behind your back...
On 3/21/2014 6:34 AM, Jeff C wrote:
I have never used OMF for my database file structure and I
was wondering is this what everybody is doing now? I realize
that if you are using ASM you have to go with OMF so I am
really only talking no ASM users. I guess I have always like
control my file names and locations. But my next database I
am about to create I was thinking of trying OMF.
If I do go with it I will probably still manually control the
location of the control files and archive files. Can you also
create a non OMF temp tablespace?
Thanks for any input
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
