RE: OMF or not OMF? DBCA or Manual scripts

From: Cunningham, Mike <>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:05:07 -0700
Message-ID: <ABBB652791780D439917574092C4BB8601511202EE_at_NPEXCHMB102.tdc.internal>

I’m with Mark, I use DBCA to generate the scripts for me, then run the scripts to create the database. It provides a consistent repeatable process.

Michael Cunningham

From: [] On Behalf Of Mark Bobak Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:56 AM
To:;; Cc:
Subject: Re: OMF or not OMF? DBCA or Manual scripts

My personal opinion, use DBCA. With a new database version, I might use DBCA to generate the script, then read the script, just to see what’s in there, and then run the script.

Back in the 7.0, maybe 8.0 days, it wasn’t a big deal to create a database manually. Today, w/ 11gR2, 12cR1, there’s just a lot of options to consider, too many really, to remember from memory. And really, how much value is there in learning and memorizing all that syntax?

Just my opinion,


From: Jeff C <<>> Reply-To: "<>" <<>> Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM To: "<>" <<>>, Jared Still <<>> Cc: "<>" <<>> Subject: Re: OMF or not OMF? DBCA or Manual scripts

Ok I think you guys have convinced me to use OMF. Now my next question is do you create your database manually using scripts or use DBCA. I have alway used DBCA, not really a big shop here. I like the idea of creating the database manually using scripts but you have to manually install components and features and I afraid I might something that was needed.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Tim Gorman <<>> wrote: "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

Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments hereto may contain confidential and privileged communications or information and/or attorney client communications or work-product protected by law. The information contained herein is transmitted for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or designated agent of the recipient of such information, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited and may subject you to penalties under federal and/or state law. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this e-mail.
-- Received on Mon Mar 24 2014 - 18:05:07 CET

Original text of this message