Re: log archive question

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:28:34 +1100
Message-ID: <XxwV9.25520$jM5.67009@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

Well bugger me with a fish fork.

OK, don't. But here goes anyway:

SQL> show parameter log_archive_max

NAME                                 TYPE        VALUE
------------------------------------ ----------- -----
log_archive_max_processes            integer     2

SQL> select isdefault from v$parameter
  2 where name like 'log_archive_max%';

ISDEFAULT

---

TRUE So Rick is quite right, the default's changed since 8i, when last I did battle with this one.

So you live and learn and make a mental note that this newsgroup is a precious resource, and however much you think you know about version X, there's always version X+1 to prove you wrong.

Thanks Rick.

However, are you *quite* sure that the extra processes aren't spawned automatically. Because that would (a) be a big step backwards in functionality and (b) contradict the latest 9i Release 2 Oracle courseware. Or maybe Oracle just realised that the auto-spawn-and-destroy mechanism never worked as advertised? (;-)

Regards
HJR "Rick Anderson" <Richard.Anderson_at_oracle.com> wrote in message news:Xns93053D5B5E1CCRichardAndersonoracl_at_148.87.1.53...
> In 9.2.0.2, the default number of ARCH processes is "2"
> and the auto-start of additional ARCH processes does not occur.
> The LOG_ARCHIVE_MAX_PROCESSES init.ora parameter specifies
> the *actual* number of ARCH processes you will have running.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Rick
>
> "Glen A. Stromquist" <glen_stromquist_at_yahoo.nosp.com> wrote in
> news:mLpV9.911$LM3.122619_at_news0.telusplanet.net:
>
>
> >
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:NAnV9.25063$jM5.66389_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > snip
> >
> >> If you really need to, go right ahead -but then, if you're that
> >> worried about a couple of extra processes on your box, I would
> >> probably leap to
> > the
> >> conclusion that you were running this database on a spare 286 you had
> > dusted
> >> off for the purpose. It's really not going to kill you having the
> >> extra processes, and as your alert log indicates, whatever
> >> toe-stepping there might be at times is soon sorted out, and archive
> >> 7 got successfully archived in the end.
> >>
> >> It's seems just plain daft to want to switch off something that was
> >> customers' big ask when version 8i was being thought about.
> >>
> >> Either that, or you're just a die-hard Oracle 7 or 8 user who *likes*
> > having
> >> single ARCH processes. No accounting for taste I suppose!! ;-)
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> HJR
> >>
> > Thanks for the insight Howard, and no I didn't add the line to the
> > init.ora file, after some more watching the alert log I realized I was
> > getting way to much writing to disk for the archived logs, even after
> > increasing the size to 5m from 1m, so I added another group and made
> > them all 25m and that seems to have settled things down.
> >
> > Now I have to find out why this app (just came online) is generating
> > so much redo for what is a relatively "quiet" database.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 05:28:34 CST