Re: Oracle 11g placement of the alert log
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:30:12 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 15, 5:57 am, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:03 pm, hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2:36 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> > > hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jan 13, 12:20 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> > > >> Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > > >>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:47:02 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > > >>>> This is untrue. One can simply change background_dump_dest and the alert
> > > >>>> log will go back to where it was.
> > > >>> Those parametes are, of course, deprecated in favor of DIAGNOSTIC_DEST
> > > >>> but are still fully functional.
> > > >> If they are now that would be news to me because in Beta 4, 5, and 6
> > > >> they were ignored.
> > > >> --
> > > >> Daniel A. Morgan
> > > >> Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
> > > >> University of Washington
> > > >> damor..._at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> > > >> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
> > > > I hate this sort of silly guesswork and innuendo. You leave anyone who
> > > > happens to be passing without any firm foundation of actual *fact*.
> > > > The facts of the matter are evident in the official documentation:
> > > > "This parameter is ignored by the new diagnosability infrastructure
> > > > introduced in Oracle Database 11g Release 1, which places trace and
> > > > core files in a location controlled by the DIAGNOSTIC_DEST
> > > > initialization parameter."
> > > > (http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28320/
> > > > initparams019.htm#REFRN10008)
> > > > Or anyone could have done this simple test:
> > > > SQL> show parameter background_dump_dest
> > > > NAME TYPE VALUE
> > > > ------------------------------------ ----------- ------------
> > > > background_dump_dest string c:\app\hjr
> > > > SQL> alter system set background_dump_dest='C:\app';
> > > > SQL> alter system switch logfile;
> > > > System altered.
> > > > SQL> host dir c:\app\
> > > > Volume in drive C has no label.
> > > > Volume Serial Number is D070-3646
> > > > Directory of c:\app
> > > > 13/01/2008 01:23 PM <DIR> .
> > > > 13/01/2008 01:23 PM <DIR> ..
> > > > 13/01/2008 01:36 PM <DIR> hjr
> > > > 0 File(s) 0 bytes
> > > > 3 Dir(s) 34,271,100,928 bytes free
> > > > ...and the lack of any alert log in the c:\app directory would
> > > > definitely indicate that a background_dump_dest setting of c:\app is
> > > > being ignored.
> > > > A test always beats guesswork based on betas any day. A citation form
> > > > the official doco helps, too.
> > > My assumption, Howard, was that people here know how to read the docs.
> > > An assumption deeply rooted in fact when the person I am responding to
> > > is Mladen.
> > > But as long as we are on the subject why did you pull your site and not
> > > just the ability for outsiders to post to the blog? That is, it would
> > > seem what some are referring to.
> > > And, as I've suggested in the past, we would be happy to host your
> > > valuable content at PSOUG.
> > > --
> > > Daniel A. Morgan
> > > Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
> > > University of Washington
> > > damor..._at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> > > Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
> > Well, don't make such assumptions then. This isn't some private little
> > club of yours. If it were, you could make all the assumptions you like
> > about its members, for you would have vetted each of them. But this is
> > the Internet, and people 'drive by' (hence my reference to 'people
> > passing'. And, since we are indeed on the subject of having a
> > responsibility to people you might not be directly interacting with, a
> > little less guesswork and a little more testing might be in order.jjj
> > The reason for me withdrawing the totality of my material from public
> > access was, I thought, fairly well explained on the holding page that
> > I displayed for several days and which is, indeed, still available for
> > review atwww.dizwell.com(atleast for the next few days). But I'll
> > say it over in case you missed it.
> Not displayed for me, I just get a login screen, which doesn't accept
> any password. Tried from a couple of very different domains.
Do you see those words "atleast for the next few days"? I included them for a reason. Time's up. Received on Mon Jan 14 2008 - 15:30:12 CST