Re: OMF or not OMF?

From: Tim Gorman <>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:40:42 -0600
Message-ID: <>

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." -W. Shakespeare, "Romeo & Juliet", Act 2, scene 2

Why do you prefer manual control of file naming? I recall scripting space management and how much needless hassle was involved in file naming and the irritation when someone on the team deviated from the preferred convention. OMF has made all of that moot, with zero downside.

One thing I recall from bucking OMF, at least from the 10g timeframe; if you created a non-OMF file and then later drop the tablespace without the clause "INCLUDING CONTENTS AND DATAFILES", ASM would drop the alias but not the file itself. So, I periodically had to go into ASMCMD and look for "orphaned" files from tablespaces that had been dropped without the "INCLUDING" clause; not sure if that is still an issue?

Regardless, it's useful to stop and think about why certain preferences exist; sometimes they go obsolete behind your back...

On 3/21/2014 6:34 AM, Jeff C wrote:
> I have never used OMF for my database file structure and I was
> wondering is this what everybody is doing now? I realize that if you
> are using ASM you have to go with OMF so I am really only talking no
> ASM users. I guess I have always like control my file names and
> locations. But my next database I am about to create I was thinking of
> trying OMF.
> If I do go with it I will probably still manually control the location
> of the control files and archive files. Can you also create a non OMF
> temp tablespace?
> Thanks for any input

Received on Fri Mar 21 2014 - 14:40:42 CET

Original text of this message