Path: text.usenetserver.com!out03a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:  Helma <helma.vinke@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: Corrupted dbf file... help!!
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:19:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <1189595962.152313.181350@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
References: <1189371124.130276.287190@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1189373801.527358@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
   <1189384361.540802.228310@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1189427467.442279.79100@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <1189435386.336190.310290@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
   <1189477982.457412.77070@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
   <1189479245.655692.8470@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <1189491304.216391.113530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <1189523880.116111.145470@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <1189586633.868222.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <1189591530.103030.298130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1189592803.765460.321110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.208.241.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189595962 9864 127.0.0.1 (12 Sep 2007 11:19:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1189592803.765460.321110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.208.241.4;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.oracle.server:434853
X-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:19:22 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)

You seem to advocate to scan the controlfile with an unix command in
stead of using the normal oracle features.
Your arguments for this are that we 'should assume nothing' from an
unexperience DBA. As an example you state that the situation from the
OP could have been right after a cold backup :
" How do you know it is the original database?" and
" The controlfile used for that display could have been from a
backup!"

I see no difference in the assumptionlevel between scanning a
controlfile and the ASCII backup to trace, except the one that
is mentioned before in this thread: It's not what you find in the
controlfile, but what Oracle finds in the controlfile.

Cold backup situation or not is not the difference that would justify
to leave normal oracle functionality. The only reason
to use a scan of a file, AFAIK, is when you prefer it because of your
strong Unix background or you simply didn't know
you could backup to trace.

H.