RE: ** SPAM scored: Low **RE: Re-setting V$tables

Sarbox is not a suicide pact. Calling folks "fresh meat" is not worthy of this list.  

So you get lack of diagnostic dedicated space and horsepower put into the Sarbox documents or red flag that to the auditors as a risk.  

Unless the risk of slow performance is rated less in anticipated cost than the risk(?) of space for diagnostics and an approved set of queries to populate the statistics, then it is a Sarbox flaw to allow the situation, once identified, to continue.  

You can minimize the risk and horsepower consumption on the production box by only inserting into "snap my values as of now" V$ clones with the instance start time and current time columns added, and select the rows of interest into a database on a different machine for analysis. Of course the access by the "different machine" has to be approved via Sarbox compliance processes as well, and the remote account should only be able to get at the v$ clone data. If you're going to include v$sql, etc., then you may have to build a widget to scramble literals, unless you are listed as a person who can see the data in your Sarbox procedures and listing of duties. This may involve making you a dotted line report to the HR director and signing relevant confidentiality documents depending on the company and jurisdiction.  

Using approved v$clones eliminates the issue with dynamic creation of GTTs, and allows you to record it in the procedures, together with rules for keeping and purging data accumulated in the v$clones.  

A change process that works, at fastest, in 3 weeks seems irresponsible out of hand to me. To be valid within Sarbox, that would need some interesting explanation.  

If you're in a Sarbox, you start "requests" with words like "We cannot responsibly manage your service level compliance without." and you document the "request."  

I haven't had a chance to look at Kyle's stuff, so I have no clue how approvable it might be in any Sarbox environment, but it can probably be subsetted reasonably to something that can be approved.  

Sarbox is not a suicide pact. Those are rules to protect stock holders and to prevent fraud. If a set of Sarbox rules dictates loss of productivity beyond reasonable bounds, it is not Sarbox compliant to implement those rules.  

Regards,  

mwf  

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Polarski, Bernard
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:10 AM To: tanel.poder.003_at_mail.ee; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: RE: ** SPAM scored: Low **RE: Re-setting V$tables  

Nah, this creates objects in DB namely a DB link and a package, you fresh meat.  

Lot of customer, these SOx days, will shoot you with a riot gun if you do this, it is not usable on production DB.  

I know site were it takes 3 weeks for an 'ultra fast emergency' administration allowance procedure

for such a big deal that creating a GTT. Can't image if I ask for a procedure or worse a DBlink.  

Bp  

From: Tanel Poder [mailto:tanel.poder.003_at_mail.ee] Sent: Wednesday, 11 October, 2006 1:29 PM To: Polarski, Bernard; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: ** SPAM scored: Low **RE: Re-setting V$tables

This has been done by Kyle Hailey long time ago, it's the ASH simulator (and has nothing to do with AWR):  

http://oraperf.sourceforge.net/ashmon/simulating_ash.html  

Tanel.

For those interested, keep an eye on http://www.smenu.org/smenu_owi.htm Should not be long to implement this. I will make also a stand alone version of the sampler so people crying on the $$ of AWR or version 8i and 9i, can have a diagnostic of the oracle wait interface for free. and last (that's the more painful, update the doc)  

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l