Re: Timing for Cloning with Flashback Database vs other methods

  • From: "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bbel5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:44:02 +0000

hey there,

I'm not a young whippersnapper anymore, but for sure RMAN can parallelise
operations. I don't have timings (yet could be a cue for an experiment...)
but I'd be surprised if RMAN in parallel wasn't comparable to shell scripts
in parallel.

You probably missed out fancy snap duplication technology using snapshots
BTW :(

Niall

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Bellows, Bambi (Comsys)
<bbel5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Hey there Listers!
>
>
>
> Cloning sure has more options nowadays than in the golden yesteryear,
> doesn't it?  There's the simple file copy with the controlfile you backed up
> from trace… being the oldtimers' best friend; then there's the newfangled
> "duplicate database" , which has the oldtimers smackin their gums talkin
> about walkin to school in the snow, 5 miles each way, uphill, without
> boots.  And, as if that weren't enough, there's this snazzy glittery clone
> achieved through flashback database, which has the oldtimers sittin in the
> dark waitin fer the young dbas to change the lightbulbs.  And fine.  But.
> Which one's fastest?  We oldtimers could parallelize that copy and shove it
> to background faster than you could say gollygeewillikers… can RMAN do
> that?  And what of this snazzydazzy flashback database for cloning?  Can it
> start with a blank slate, or does it need a database to be created and stuff
> before it lets tear?  And, really, seriously, what *are* the timings?  One
> would assume that if the target database exists and is pretty much kept up
> to date, anything which just applies changes is going to be lickety-split
> faster, but what if it's not?
>
>
>
> I'm off to soak my teeth for awhile, but I appreciate any insights you
> whippersnappers might have… J
>
> Bambi.
>



-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info

Other related posts: