Re: control file size - control_file_record_keep_time
From: Guillermo Alan Bort <cicciuxdba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:29:06 -0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTik8M5drOC3DQtCv2bKxdKkVT+srDQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
If you increase this value there is more information (the file is bigger) to go through when you perform certain operations (mainly backup related) that can be impacted. However, considering that the average control file is about 100K and we are talking about servers with 1) filesystem caching, 2) gigabytes or tens of gygabytes (perhaps hundreds?) of physical memory, it is likely that having a slightly bigger controlfile will not be negative (performance-wise).
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:29:06 -0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTik8M5drOC3DQtCv2bKxdKkVT+srDQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
If you increase this value there is more information (the file is bigger) to go through when you perform certain operations (mainly backup related) that can be impacted. However, considering that the average control file is about 100K and we are talking about servers with 1) filesystem caching, 2) gigabytes or tens of gygabytes (perhaps hundreds?) of physical memory, it is likely that having a slightly bigger controlfile will not be negative (performance-wise).
hth
Alan.-
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:14 PM, CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP) <JC1706_at_att.com>wrote:
> control_file_record_keep_time=7 (default)
>
> control_file_record_keep_time=30
>
>
>
> We typically increase this value on 10g and 11g databases in order to track
> RMAN and Data Guard info for longer periods than the default, which is 7
> days. I normally set it to 30,60 sometimes 90 days. We do not use an RMAN
> catalog for many databases (that’s another long story but we are stuck with
> it).
>
>
>
> Is there any downside to increasing this value ?
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Apr 18 2011 - 18:29:06 CDT