Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM

From: Noons <>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 27, 11:13 pm, Noons <> wrote:
> Mladen Gogala wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2012 3:41 AM:
> > I am engaged in a discussion about moving from 10g -->  11g. The
> > tablespaces in this particular 10G are all created with the manual
> > segment space management. I am reading the blogs and am aware of all the
> > troubles that ASSM can cause, ranging from wasting space to problems with
> > the free lists and even some spurious corruption issues.
> > However, Oracle made ASSM default in version 10g, and this project is
> > about upgrading a large production DB. What are the opinions here? Does
> > it make sense to go with manual SSM  or should I go with ASSM?
> Been running ASSM in our patched up DW without any issues - so far.
> Going in a matter of months and will definitely keep ASSM.
> Spurious corruptions were all patched up in 10r2.  So were most of the space
> problems, and the remaining I've been able to keep under control with scheduled
> in-place reorgs.
> I can't talk about the stability of ASSM in 11gr2, but if it is like in my
> current 10gr2 setup, I'll be happy.

Oh, I should have added that I use uniform allocation in all my tablespaces, rather than automatic allocation. As such, I never get any of the conditions described in Jonathan's posts on ASSM. Received on Sun Jan 29 2012 - 15:28:22 CST

Original text of this message