"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> "Jose Nicolau" <jose.nicolau_at_clix.pt> wrote in message
> news:3AC72298.FA19DE83_at_clix.pt...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > > I'll keep it short and sweet: No.
> > >
> > > And this a cracking demonstration of why housing two separate
applications
> > > within the one database is a really, really bad idea.
> > >
> >
> > I desagree.
> > You can have as many applications as you want with all data in one
database.
> > I said 'you can', not 'you should'...
>
> No argument so far (but hold your breath). The subjunctive is very
> important in this discussion, however.
>
> > If one application needs some parameter in init.ora that 'conflits' with
the
> > others applications, ok, it's a good reason to chose another database for
that
> > application.
>
> Ah, so you actually agree with me then. Good. (Incidentally,
> log_archive_start *is* an init.ora parameter).
>
> > More: O9i is intended to support, no only diferent applications, but from
> > diferent companies.
>
> Nice. Glad you know all about 9i, which is vapourware currently, and
> irrelevant to the discussion. If Unix ever got to the point of working as
> easily out of the box as Windows, I'd switch in a minute... but it isn't
> right now, so I won't. And 8i right now is not intended to support multiple
> applications in the one database, and so I won't force it to do so.
>
> As for 9i, until it invents memory structures which mean you can access the
> one application without ANY impact on the second, then I will beleieve that
> support for different block sizes and the rest are clever cludges to satisfy
> the mass of loonies out there trying this stuff than a real addressing of
> the issues.
>
> Silly me... that functionality is *already* available -different Instances,
> different databases.
>
> >
> > This reason, that we are talking about, is not a good example to change
> > database.
> >
>
> Excuse me? One application doesn't need redo, but the other one does? And
> that doesn't qualify, according to you? You're stark, staring bonkers if
>
...if one application doesn't need redo, just creat those tables without
loging...
> you believe that. The redo subsystem is the absolute key to good
> performance. Knacker that, and you knacker the application. And ARCH
> churning away when it doesn't need to sounds like a good case of application
> knackering to me.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > HJR
> > >
> > > "Petra Hein/Gerald Bauer" <Petra.Hein-Gerald.Bauer_at_t-online.de> wrote in
> > > message news:9a1bag$2h4$04$1_at_news.t-online.com...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > We have a database running in archive log mode.
> > > > Is it possible to exclude specific tablespaces from archiving (i.e.
all
> > > > inserts, updates, deletes for these specific tablespaces should not
produce
> > > > archive log entries) ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The question arises, because we would like to have two completely
different
> > > > applications' data stored in one database (Each application has its
own
> > > > tablespaces.) :
> > > >
> > > > The first application is currently backed up by making consistent
exports
of
> > > > specific users at specific times. There is not necessarily the need to
run
> > > > this application in archive log mode.
> > > >
> > > > The second application definitely must run in archive log mode.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Gerald
> > > >
> > > >
> >
Received on Tue Apr 03 2001 - 21:49:53 CDT
