"Jesse, Rich" wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremiah,
>
> First, I believe it's a misconception that on a Unix system there can be no
> data lost in an Oracle DB from a system crash. This HAS to be a function of
> "syncer", doesn't it? And, therefore, until syncer decides any buffer
> writes actually go to disk, transactions can be toast. Granted, this is a
> very short time, but the possibility would still exist for a standalone
> Oracle DB, especially for one with a high transaction count. But I haven't
> seen any "official" info, whether true or false, from Oracle about this.
> Comments, anyone???
>
> Second, I hope you're going to have explanations and/or qualifications (even
> brief ones!) about the misconceptions somewhere on your website? There's a
> few in your list that have me intrigued!
>
> Thanks!
> Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA
>
I got my information 15 years ago, but ...
In fact, Oracle used to claim that they were using some undocumented
Unix system calls (fflush() would have looked fine to me, but it musn't
be subtle enough) to force Unix to sync and to return 'Committed' when
your transaction is actually written to disk (I'd like to precise to the
redo log files but they weren't any then). I have indeed met some
systems where the said calls had probably not been implemented (or the
Oracle charm offensive had not be enough to have it disclosed) and it
was specifically specified in the installation guide that you HAD to use
raw devices if you wanted to be certain not to lose a transaction.
In fact 'lost transaction' doesn't mean that you do not lose any update,
it just means that once you have got the acknowledgment from Oracle that
it has been validated your change is safe.
Concerning misconceptions, I find the topic interesting but tricky.
There are some obvious misconceptions. There are also misconceptions
today which were the plain truth some releases ago (some versions ago
sometimes) - and may no longer be misconceptions in the future, so they
have to be stamped with a version number. Oracle themselves have
originated a number of misconceptions (eg, version 6.0 'automatically
increasing extent size by a factor of 1.5 will solve fragmentation
problems' - for a while, even rollback segments were submitted to the
PCTINCREASE rule, totally insane as they soon noticed). Some good ideas
never take off, or are dumped. Curious to find out how many of Oracle9i
fancy features will prove, in the long term, to have been
misconceptions. I guess I am growing more and more sceptical.
My 0.02 cents.
--
Regards,
Stephane Faroult
Oriole Corporation
Voice: +44 (0) 7050-696-269
Fax: +44 (0) 7050-696-449
Performance Tools & Free Scripts
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.oriole.com, designed by Oracle DBAs for Oracle DBAs
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Stephane Faroult
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
