Re: archivelog mode switch logfile statement

Then, Robert, all I can say is... you've never had an Instance failure whilst performing hot backup! Because if you had, you would be stuck with a datafile with an inconsistent SCN, and the database would refuse to open on startup. Log switches are recommended to force synchronisation... but if you've got UPSes and redundant power supplies, I agree that it's essentially pointless.

Just out of interest... why have you had to perform so many recoveries??!

Regards
HJR "DBA" <oracledba_at_rpdatasolutions.com> wrote in message news:3c5f4452.39658125_at_nntp.slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I've recovered many, many of databases from hot-backups...I issue the
> command at the end of the hot-backup once and have never had a
> problem.
>
> Robert
>
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:40:39 GMT, cjundieseastwd_at_powerup.com.au
> (obakesan) wrote:
>
> >HiYa
> >
> >according to what I have read, when doing archive log based hot backups,
one
> >should do an alter system switch logfile at the end of the backup. I
understand
> >that this is to flush the redo log files so one can backup all the
relevant
> >transactions together.
> >
> >What I have trouble with right now, is how often should I issue this
command??
> >According to HJR's document once per table space. Is this right? Other
sources
> >have suggested (so I have noted on google searching) to only do it after
the
> >SYSTEM tablespace is backed up, and to make sure that that one is backed
last
> >too.
> >
> >Why? What is wrong with making only one statement alter system switch
logfile at
> >the end of the backup procedure, just to flush out the last of the files?
Surely
> >the archiver process will be shunting stuff out as it fills anyway?? Are
there
> >seperate logfiles for each tablespace??? (I didnt think so)
> >
> >Yours befuddled
> >
> >
> >thanks again
> >
> >
> >See Ya
> >
> >--
> >(when bandwidth gets better ;-)
> >
> >Chris Eastwood
> >Photographer, Programmer, Motorcyclist and dingbat
> >
> >please remove u n d i e s for reply
>
Received on Tue Feb 05 2002 - 02:08:28 CST