Re: migrating to locally managed tablespaces

But that is right. The move was not completed, though, because they could not drop a tablespace. That's why just plain selects from dba_free_space became very slow, and the packaged application joins it with its own config tables, where things like which tablespaces are not monitored are defined.

Keeping fet$ small during a move to LMT is a little gotcha, that's the bottom line..

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> I must have misunderstood. I was reacting to
>
> " the monitoring (packaged application which
> checks dba_free_space) is not working"
>
> I see no reason why just a move to LMT would stop anything that monitors
> DBA_FREE_SPACE from working.
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
>
> ******************************************
> "Karen Abgarian" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2C13C5.D57E6846_at_ureach.com...
> > > I'm curious, we had a conversation recently where someone else suggested
> > > that free space didn't appear in dba_free_space for LMT's. However it
> most
> > > clearly does for me. This is 9.2 and I have both uniform and autoextent
> > > allocation going on.
> >
> > Why wouldn't it? There has to be a way to find out how much space is
> left.
> > Look at the view definition for DBA_FREE_SPACE. You will see that it now
> > has a union of the old stuff for DMTs and the new stuff, which selects
> from a
> > x$k*bfe table. So it will show both (however last checked on 8i).
> >
> > DBA_EXTENTS will also have a union but the LMT information is collected
> > from another x$ table.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The funny part about it is that the project to move to LMT
> > > > from DMT has already completed and reported as successful.
> > >
> > > Did you use the built in dbms package for the job?
> > >
> >
> > I don't have a lot of details about what was done, because there was an
> > ownership transition. I assume that they did not use the package because
> they
> >
> > wanted LMTs with uniform extents and that some tablespaces are still DMT
> > and that's why there is a performance impact when trying to coalesce the
> old
> > tablespace.
> >
> >
Received on Fri Jan 24 2003 - 02:28:54 CST