Re: Redo Log Question

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 06:11:30 +1100
Message-ID: <kU2N9.7881$jM5.21951@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Chuckster" <chuckycarson_at_networkcloud.com> wrote in message news:3E04A739.5020503_at_networkcloud.com...
>
> When you have your redo logs created as follows:
> LOGFILE
> GROUP 1 '/u01/oradata/syrlims/redo01.log' SIZE 10M,
> GROUP 2 '/u02/oradata/syrlims/redo02.log' SIZE 10M,
> GROUP 3 '/u03/oradata/syrlims/redo03.log' SIZE 10M,
> GROUP 4 '/u04/oradata/syrlims/redo04.log' SIZE 10M

Correct. No redundancy. If you wanted redundancy, it would look like this:

LOGFILE
GROUP 1
('/u01/oradata/syrlims/redo1a.log','/u05/blahblahblah/redo1b.log') SIZE 10M,

GROUP 2 ('/u02/oradata/syrlims/redo2a.log','/u06/bbb/redo2b.log') SIZE 10M,

GROUP 3 ('/u03/oradata/syrlims/redo3a.log','/u07/bbb/redo3b.log') SIZE 10M,

GROUP 4 ('/u04/oradata/syrlims/redo4a.log','/u08/bbb/redo4b.log') SIZE 10M

Extra groups buy you time before you start over-writing earlier logs (and, specifically, buys ARCH time to archive the earlier logs before your try and re-use them).

Extra members per group buys you resilience and redundancy.

And I've renamed your original files so that the number indicates the group and the letter indicates the member, which I find easier to manage than the 'official' recommendation of, for example, REDO0101 and REDO0102.

Regards
HJR
>
>
> This is merely 4 different log files with no redundancy correct? If I
> wanted path redundancy, I would need to add more log files per group and
> make sure they are on different volume groups/spindles correct?
>
> Thanks,
> CC
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=----- Received on Sat Dec 21 2002 - 13:11:30 CST