Re: LMT and DMT

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 23:13:01 +1000
Message-ID: <6RN%9.40328$jM5.102296@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"tingl" <one4all_at_all4one.not> wrote in message news:tUE%9.6058$6P2.678346_at_newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:UHX_9.38406$jM5.97340_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > "tingl" <one4all_at_all4one.not> wrote in message
> > news:MZU_9.2302$ek4.226461_at_newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > I would say a properly sized LMT is better than a poorly managed DMT,
> and
> > > vice versa.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Tingl,
> >
> > and I would say that the above is too simplistic a comment.
> >
> > There are advantages to LMT that make it easier to have a "properly
> > configured LMT" and harder for the same to be said about DMT.
> >
> > I still think LMT is better ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >

>

> Hi Richard,

>
> I am not sure what you meant by too simplistic. My intention was to make
it
> less simplistic
> than just "LMT is better.". Anyway there is a tradeoff between ease of
> maintenance and
> flexibility. LMT and DMT each has pros and cons. Neither is better than
the
> other in all
> situations.

>

Hi Tingl,

What can a DMT do that can't be performed or managed easier with a LMT ?

This of course is all going to be a rather moot point as with 9.2, with a System LMT, DMT are not even possible and with 10i they'll probably be gone for good.

Cheers

Richard Received on Tue Feb 04 2003 - 07:13:01 CST