Re: Redolog group Members

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:53:48 +1100, "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:

>> So deleting a log member is not hypothetic - the same for deleting all
>> members. So more files does not neccessarily mean more safety.
>
>The word "necessarily" is redundant. Of course if you are totally
>insane, ...

Why that now... :-|

>So I hope you won't start arguing or refuting.

No, I won't. My problem is, that I not seem to be able guide (direct?!?) the discussion in a direction, that it gives me the answers I was searching for.

It is totally clear to me, that it will less often happen to delete exidently 2 or 3 files, than one. And it is also clear to me, that users and admins can make mistakes, and that more redundancy will in some or many cases save me from catastrophic failures. It is also clear to me, that redundance may be the major topic, if we talk about safety at all.

All the discussion here is about risk. And you are totally right: I did not say a word about personal failures in my initial post: My failure. We do not need to discuss it here the way it happened. Everything is totally clear here.

That still things can happen, like it did happen with the big virtual disk I did talk about, does not relativate the above topic in any way. It was, as I tried to state, just a risk you can not get around by multiplying the log members. That's all.

What I wanted to hear is, if there had been other people thinking about their number of logfiles, and what they did choose and why. I definately did ask for _experiences_, two times.

For example I would have liked to hear about the performance topic I did address in my initial post, or that I (maybe) would have other advantages, if I have more log members. Or maybe disadvantages. Or "Where the costs exceed the perceived benefits.". Or why you would recommend 3 log members - you did not explain it. Oracle did say two. Why 3 then? What did make you choose 3, when you do not know my setup at all? Is it a general recommendation? Because you seemed explicitely not to like to explain it, it got the character of some kind of: "For you it may be the best, if you would better take 3".

At least, the corruption of logs thing was really new to me. An interesting thing. Although I still do not know, what this means for the running database, not the one I would need to recover some day. Does it have an influence? We had some corruptions in database files, and we had to recover for more than a whole day.

>You are apparently looking for a kick in the teeth if your attitude is
>actually anything to go by. But no matter. Perhaps it's just a language
>thing. What I've written is based on experience. You are free to ignore
>it as much as you want. But one then questions the wisdom of soliciting
>the material in a public forum.

I'm not shure, if I should be happy to not understand this perfectly.

>>>If you feel that way about things, of course, you could always set
>>>_disable_logging=true, watch your database run like a leaping gazelle,

Sorry, for not reading this conscientous enough. For shure I meant archiving, not your parameter.

>I assume you are intelligent and capable. I assume you care about your

Oh, man, please tell me, that I have been written so much nonsense, that you need to talk with me that way. I did hope to find some more answers about the archiving stuff, because in the manuals of Oracle I did not find too much info about the parametrization of this. And now here I stand like a dummy...

--
Martin