RE: Oracle-Managed Files - your views
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:32:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4814386347E41145AAE79139EAA398980D39BBE85C_at_ws03-exch07.iconos.be>
Well, I'm using it for several databases at customer sites and I must say I like it. It makes the administration easier and gives less chance for errors. I especially like it for dataguard environments (no more *name_convert parameters).
The database files are all placed on a san, so there is also no real reason to spread out the datafiles over various filesystems.
As the current environment is using ASM, you are in fact already using OMF. So, the only difference in administration would be that you can now see your datafiles on the filesystem.
regards,
Freek D'Hooge
Uptime
Oracle Database Administrator
email: freek.dhooge_at_uptime.be
tel +32(0)3 451 23 82
http://www.uptime.be
disclaimer: www.uptime.be/disclaimer
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sequeira [tony_at_sequeira.org.uk] Sent: 15 December 2009 17:20
To: Oracle List
Subject: Oracle-Managed Files - your views
Hi group,
I have to move a 10g (10.2.0.3) application off a Solaris 10 machine (using ASM) to a Windows 2003 server (don't ask).
The required application is only one smallish schema, so I'm going to pre-create a database (10.2.0.4) and use export/import.
I'm thinking of using OMF. Does anyone here have any views on OMF. My research has come up with the following:
Primary advantage seems to be management (no need to specify file names/locations...)
The list of disadvantages I have found are all dismissable for this particular application.
File System only - I'm OK with that
Naming Standards - No issue for this database
Tuning - Again no issue for this database.
Regards.
--
S. Anthony Sequeira
++
It is bad luck to be superstitious.
- Andrew W. Mathis ++
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Tue Dec 15 2009 - 11:32:47 CST