Re: Oracle 11g placement of the alert log

From: Arch <>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:54:28 GMT
Message-ID: <>

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:39:11 -0800 (PST), Mark D Powell <> wrote:

>On Jan 12, 8:59 am, Arch <> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:22:58 -0800 (PST), Charles Hooper
>> <> wrote:
>> >On Jan 12, 6:50 am, Arch <> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:39:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 11, 9:51 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <> wrote:
>> >> >> JAW <> wrote in news:38f15211-7e7b-4afd-9f91-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I have started to test Oracle 11g.
>> >> >> > I have scripts in place that read the alert log already.
>> >> >> > The log goes into a new location in 11g.
>> >> >> > Has anyone found a way to put the log back in its original position?
>> >> >> You could always use softlinks
>> >> >Is there a way to put symbolic links on Windows OS?
>> >> No.  But Windows has pretty screens.
>> >Yes, Windows supports symbolic links.
>> >From the "Windows Vista Resource Kit" book, page 447:
>> >"Junction points are super-hidden (the system and hidden attributes
>> >are set) and can be displayed using the dir /AL command at the command
>> >prompt, where the L option displays all reparse points (junction
>> >points or symbolic links) within the current directory."
>> >From the "Windows Vista Resource Kit" book, page 450:
>> >"Note: The junction from Users\All Users to ProgramDara shown in Table
>> >14-4 is actually a symbolic link and not a junction point.  Symbolic
>> >links (symlinks) are new to Windows Vista and not supported on
>> >previous versions of Microsoft Windows.  Symlinks, junction points and
>> >hard links can be created using the mklink command."
>> >From the "Windows Vista Resource Kit" book, page 536:
>> >"Windows Vista includes symbolic links.  Symbolic links act like
>> >shortcuts, but they provide a transparent link to the target file at
>> >the file-system level, rather than within Explorer...  A symbolic link
>> >will actually trick applications into thinking they are directly
>> >accessing the target file."
>> >
>> >"A symbolic link is a file system object that points to another file
>> >system object. The object being pointed to is called the destination
>> >object. Symbolic links are transparent to users. The links appear as
>> >normal files or directories, and they can be used by the user or
>> >application in exactly the same manner. Symbolic links have been added
>> >to Windows ServerŽ 2008 to aid in migration and application
>> >compatibility with UNIX operating systems."
>> >
>> >"Windows 2000 and higher supports directory symbolic links, where a
>> >directory serves as a symbolic link to another directory on the
>> >computer. For example, if the directory D:\SYMLINK specified C:\WINNT
>> >\SYSTEM32 as its target, then an application accessing D:\SYMLINK
>> >\DRIVERS would in reality be accessing C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS.
>> >Directory symbolic links are known as NTFS junctions in Windows."
>> >
>> >"The Windows 2000 version of NTFS introduced symbolic directory links,
>> >called directory junctions, which allow you to create a directory that
>> >points at a different directory, but until the Windows Vista version,
>> >NTFS has only supported hard links for files."
>> >Yes, Windows supports symbolic links.  It may in part depend on how
>> >you define a symbolic link to determine what version first supported
>> >symbolic links.  There are a couple articles on Microsoft's site that
>> >describe creating symbolic links on Windows 95 and 98, but those are
>> >likely something a bit different.
>> >Charles Hooper
>> >IT Manager/Oracle DBA
>> >K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
>> Semantic gymnastics.  The fact is there is nothing in windows
>> equivalent to a symbolic link in Unix. Junction points (correctly
>> termed reparse points) are quite similar to a Unix hard link.  Still
>> not the same.  Whatever name you want to give it, there is nothing in
>> Windows that will do what a symbolic link does for Unix.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Arch, if you can in fact follow the Window Vista documentation and
>define a Windows symbolic link that results in you program referencing
>file A but actually reading or writing file B just as a UNIX symbolc
>link does then the features would seem to functionally equilivent no
>matter the internal underpinnings. Your rebuttal is too devoid of
>supporting facts to allow me to determine why your agrument should be
>IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

Perhaps I should have excluded Vista from my insistence that Windows has no equivalent of a symbolic link. Received on Sat Jan 12 2008 - 08:54:28 CST

Original text of this message