Message-ID: <024c01c6bafa$95a69330$6500a8c0@TerrySutton>
From: "Terry Sutton" <terrysutton@usa.net>
To: <oracle-l@freelists.org>
References: <14C5F9616FF43F479F67E41A1DF4D94A0CDBD723@exchangeb.staff.uce.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Inheriting a "interesting" recovery process
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 07:51:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Precedence: normal
Reply-to: terrysutton@usa.net

"Faith's what you use when you have a lack of evidence to support your
position." (don't know who said that).

As has been pointed out, Cary's the one who wrote the OFA spec.  However,
Cary would be among the first to point out that that fact doesn't inherently
mean the way he wrote it is the best way.  So read the spec he wrote.  It
has the reasons for all of the conventions suggested.  Then ask yourself,
"does it make sense to put datafiles under ORACLE_BASE?".

If OFA made sense in 1995 (which it did), has anything changed which would
invalidate the the logic in it?

--Terry


> So I don't know which OFA spec Cary's referring to - his link was to a
> document dated 1995, so I think I'd be more inclined to put my faith in
> the Oracle publication from June 2006. Or is it a case of "well, there's
> OFA, then there's OFA..."?
>
> Paul Vincent
> Oracle DBA (but not a very hot one)
> UCE Birmingham

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l