Re: ORACLE_BASE and $ORACLE_HOME
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 23, 10:19 pm, pellicleund..._at_hotmail.com (obakesan) wrote:
> In article <8df1dc7a-54e8-4319-b981-bfc66ac7f..._at_z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> >If you search tahiti.oracle.com for the phrase:
> >Optimal Flexible Architecture
> >and then look at the 10g docs, you may notice a whole bunch of unix
> >installation guide references.
> you know, when I read stuff like that I wonder if the reply was a typical
> "knee jerk reaction" of RTFM, but I did mention:
> >> In the past I recall using both $ORACLE_BASE and $ORACLE_HOME, but when
> >> reading Administrator's Guide 10g Release 1 (10.1) Part No. B10739-01 I
> >> find that it suggests ORACLE_BASE is only windows platform.
Well, I can see where you might have thought it was an RTFM, because it was. But since it showed exactly how you might use it to answer the question, "knee jerk" might be an overstatement.
> >> the manual states:
> just incase you didn't noitce that
Of course I noticed it. You seemed to be abstracting from the Windows manual that it only applies to Windows, and yet all those references also have it. Do I need to whack your knuckles with a sliderule ? :-)
http://download.oracle.com/docs/pdf/A55980_01.pdf is but one example of O7 OFA.
My own recollection is for the longest time, %ORACLE_HOME%\dbs was the Windows way and OFA the unix way, but that is in no way statistically valid. Every few years I try to give Windows a fair shake, and every few years I reaffirm unix bias.
I also recall thinking there were some things in the original OFA that just smacked of unsupportable statements (there were other performance myths at the time, some put out by Oracle, some still floating about). Even now Cary is making a concerted effort to be sure that doesn't happen in his writings - I'm sure putting on performance conferences can be motivating.
> I did search what you suggested, and had found this:
> The Database Configuration Assistant provides the ability to create an Oracle
> OFA (Optimal Flexible Architecture) compliant instance. The OFA-like file
> layout provides a standardized file layout and eases management and
> If the user selects to modify a database, installed cartridges that have not
> previously been configured for use with the database can be configured. Also,
> multi-threaded server support for the database can be enabled or disabled.
> Oracle 8.1.5 has improved error detection mechanisms, enhanced MTS support,
> and better cleanup on failure and cancellation of database creation. In
> addition, when a database is deleted, the entire Oracle Flexible Architecture
> (OFA) structure is removed for that database.
> so it seems that it was in 8i that it was released and also seems that OFA can
> Oracle Flexible Architecture as well as
> Optimal Flexible Architecture
> >Actually, it was originally put together by Cary Millsap long ago, and
> >I recall seeing a post on oracle-l where he didn't agree with the mods
> >for 10g.
> >It's just a recommendation, but a fairly good one as far as I'm
> oh, for sure.
> >concerned. There have been various mods proposed over the years, but
> >personally I've found when I go into a new place if it is close to
> >"standard" it's a heck of a lot easier. There are some things
> >leftover from the old jbod days which can look weird, but in the end,
> >it is a DBA configuration decision.
> >The $ORACLE_HOME/dbs default location could be considered to be a
> >conflicting alternative configuration to OFA.
> ok, but that still leaves me wondering about $ORACLE_BASE and $ORACLE_HOME.
> Which was my question (not if this is a better system or not).
Well again, it is a DBA decision. It was a better system before SAME (google if you aren't familiar), more of a toss-up these days, except as someone pointed out, the installation tools handle it. Where it becomes better is when you transition into a complicated configuration, which becomes inevitable with app servers, grids, apaches and whatall, not to mention business considerations like growth and mergers. Whether all those technical things handle it correctly is another question. My own personal preference is to try to keep things like the defaults unless there is some reason not to, which means it is a better system - by definition, if not necessarily objectively true.
> See Ya
> (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
> Chris Eastwood
> Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
> please remove undies for reply
Wearing of undies assumed? :-)
-- @home.com is bogus. I've already voted, why do I have to be bombarded with all the crap?Received on Mon Oct 27 2008 - 12:04:20 CDT