Re: Timing for Cloning with Flashback Database vs other methods

From: Niall Litchfield <>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:44:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>

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) <>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

Received on Fri Dec 05 2008 - 12:44:02 CST

Original text of this message