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