Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM
From: Gerard H. Pille <ghp_at_skynet.be>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4f21a38b$0$5044$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
Mladen Gogala wrote:
>
> I was actually looking for any argument against ASSM. The app to be
> converted uses 8i philosophy with uniform extents and manual segment
> management. As a result, there is a genuine tablespace zoo. Indexes and
> data are separated, a relict from the good old times when DBA could
> specify disk devices, and the tablespaces are divided in 3 categories, S,M
> and X. There is a bitter opposition to the idea of having auto-allocate
> tablespace with ASSM, one for each logical part.
> I wonder what kind of argument can be made in favour of such 8i
> organization, disguised as 10G database? So far, no argument has been
> presented to me, that's why I'm asking.
>
>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4f21a38b$0$5044$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
Mladen Gogala wrote:
>
> I was actually looking for any argument against ASSM. The app to be
> converted uses 8i philosophy with uniform extents and manual segment
> management. As a result, there is a genuine tablespace zoo. Indexes and
> data are separated, a relict from the good old times when DBA could
> specify disk devices, and the tablespaces are divided in 3 categories, S,M
> and X. There is a bitter opposition to the idea of having auto-allocate
> tablespace with ASSM, one for each logical part.
> I wonder what kind of argument can be made in favour of such 8i
> organization, disguised as 10G database? So far, no argument has been
> presented to me, that's why I'm asking.
>
>
We often regret not being able anymore to decide where something is stored. Received on Thu Jan 26 2012 - 13:03:49 CST