Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
His name was Magnus Lönnroth or Lonnrott or something. He moved to the US after coming out with the WOW stuff, and help bring out the OWA or whatever it was called. Mladen Gogala wrote: Mogens, do you happen to know the name of the Swedish or Norwegian guy who wrote WOW gateway? He used to be a member of this list. WOW was the first thing to be able to access the oracle database through the CGI interface. That guy was phenomenal, I believe that he has had a part in WebIV as well. On 2003.09.07 04:34, Mogens Nørgaard wrote: When I was hired as a DBA by a bank here in 1987 I used 1200 baud modems to dial up and manage the 5.1.22 thing. Of course we used Kermit and set host/ x25 - very cool stuff back in those days. And free. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mogens_N=F8rgaard?= INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - 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).
Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Mogens, do you happen to know the name of the Swedish or Norwegian guy who wrote WOW gateway? He used to be a member of this list. WOW was the first thing to be able to access the oracle database through the CGI interface. That guy was phenomenal, I believe that he has had a part in WebIV as well. On 2003.09.07 04:34, Mogens Nørgaard wrote: When I was hired as a DBA by a bank here in 1987 I used 1200 baud modems to dial up and manage the 5.1.22 thing. Of course we used Kermit and set host/ x25 - very cool stuff back in those days. And free. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mladen Gogala INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - 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).
Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
When I was hired as a DBA by a bank here in 1987 I used 1200 baud modems
to dial up and manage the 5.1.22 thing. Of course we used Kermit and set
host/x25 - very cool stuff back in those days. And free.
WebIV was fantastic. It was created by a few guys in Oracle UK Support,
among them David Ruthven, who now runs DDR there. It combined free text
search on both TAR's (called something else back then, like PMS) and
notes, mostly written by the most productive person in Oracle ever (he's
still around, he's still as productive) whose name I have forgotten
right now. Damn.
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Same here. I've actually had 14400 modem on my desk. Before that, I
was using 9600 modems and kermit or "SET HOST/X25"
(once upon a time on a VAX far, far away)
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
-Original Message-
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
Behalf Of *Arup Nanda
*Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 AM
*To:* Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
*Subject:* Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Tim, WebIV? I must have skipped a generation; I used the
OraSupport forum on CompuServe before the MetaLink. You had to
subscribe to CompuServe; and it was accessible only through
dial-up; so we had dial-up lines at our desk, had to buy external
modems, and all that. And I thought WebIV was and still is only
for Oracle Consulting and Support Staff.
Arup
- Original Message -
*From:* Tim Gorman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2003 9:44 AM
*Subject:* Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Good point! Another war story...
Some 6 years ago, during v7.3.3 timeframe, a DBA decided to
modify INITIAL, NEXT, and PCTINCREASE of everything, including
stuff in SYSTEM. Unfortunately, he chose first to do this in
pre-PROD (to become PROD following week). Turns out he ran
into a little-known bug (aren’t they all, at first?) whereby
any ALTER TABLE to the table named SYS.BOOTSTRAP$ causes a
single bit to be set in the segment header block. This single
bit being set causes ORA-00600 on instance startup.
You guessed it: the night before go live, they had a junior
DBA stop and restart the instance at 12:30am. Poor guy stayed
up all night, I got there around 6:00am, we found the cause
and convinced Oracle Support to dial in and BBED the problem
into submission by 1:00pm. MetaLink didn’t exist in those days
— we had access to MetaLink’s predecessor, called “WebIV”...
Don’t change the stuff in the SYSTEM tablespace, which
includes the tablespace itself. Keep “foreign stuff” (i.e. not
belonging to SYS, SYSTEM, MDSYS, ORDSYS, OUTLN, etc) out of it
and just leave it alone.
on 8/18/03 4:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i thought you should leave the system table space to the
defaults? Ive never touched System.
you really should change system to locally managed
tablespaces?
>
> From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
>
> Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and
dispense with the
> issue altogether?
>
>
> on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50
pct_increase in 9i? I k
> > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
>
>
>
>
Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and
dispense with the issue altogether?
on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50
pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past,
but why not set it to zero?
Ryan
**
*Note:*
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and
all copies of it
RE: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Well, technically he's right. If you don't qualify CREATE TABLESPACE or CREATE DATABASE command with the "EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL" clause, you will get dictionary tablespaces. dbca, however despicable it is, does not forget it. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -Original Message- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:34 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L i did use the dbca to create this instance? > > From: "Richard Foote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/08/18 Mon AM 10:39:23 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > Hi Mladen, > > Just to avoid any confusion, you have the *option* to create a LM > System tablespace, the *default* is still DM. The ODCA uses the extent > management local clause in it's default scripts but to create a > database manually, you need to remember the clause. > > Whether it should use ASSM is somewhat more debatable... > > Cheers > > Richard > - Original Message - > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 PM > > > > Actually, from 9iR2, system tablespace is created as locally managed > > autoallocate. They should have put in "SEGMENT MANAGEMENT AUTO" > > clause as well, but hey, you can't always get what you want, but you > > can try > sometimes. > > > > On 2003.08.18 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? > > > Ive > never > > > touched System. > > > > > > you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > > > > > > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > > > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense > > > > with > the > > > > issue altogether? > > > > > > > > > > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 > > > > > pct_increase > in > > > 9i? I k > > > > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mladen Gogala > > Oracle DBA > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Mladen Gogala > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > > > > - > > 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). > > > > > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Richard Foote > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > - > 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). > > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of &
Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
i did use the dbca to create this instance? > > From: "Richard Foote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/08/18 Mon AM 10:39:23 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > Hi Mladen, > > Just to avoid any confusion, you have the *option* to create a LM System > tablespace, the *default* is still DM. The ODCA uses the extent management > local clause in it's default scripts but to create a database manually, you > need to remember the clause. > > Whether it should use ASSM is somewhat more debatable... > > Cheers > > Richard > - Original Message - > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 PM > > > > Actually, from 9iR2, system tablespace is created as locally managed > > autoallocate. They should have put in "SEGMENT MANAGEMENT AUTO" clause as > > well, but hey, you can't always get what you want, but you can try > sometimes. > > > > On 2003.08.18 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive > never > > > touched System. > > > > > > you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > > > > > > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > > > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with > the > > > > issue altogether? > > > > > > > > > > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase > in > > > 9i? I k > > > > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mladen Gogala > > Oracle DBA > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: Mladen Gogala > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > > - > > 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). > > > > > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Richard Foote > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > - > 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). > > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - 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).
RE: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Title: Message
Same
here. I've actually had 14400 modem on my desk. Before that, I was using 9600
modems and kermit or "SET HOST/X25"
(once
upon a time on a VAX far, far away)
--Mladen GogalaOracle DBA
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arup
NandaSent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 AMTo: Multiple
recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re: system tablespace at 50
pct_increase in 9i?
Tim, WebIV? I must have skipped a generation; I
used the OraSupport forum on CompuServe before the MetaLink. You had to
subscribe to CompuServe; and it was accessible only through dial-up; so we had
dial-up lines at our desk, had to buy external modems, and all that. And I
thought WebIV was and still is only for Oracle Consulting and Support
Staff.
Arup
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:44
AM
Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50
pct_increase in 9i?
Good point! Another war
story...Some 6 years ago, during v7.3.3 timeframe, a DBA decided to
modify INITIAL, NEXT, and PCTINCREASE of everything, including stuff in
SYSTEM. Unfortunately, he chose first to do this in pre-PROD (to
become PROD following week). Turns out he ran into a little-known bug
(aren’t they all, at first?) whereby any ALTER TABLE to the table named
SYS.BOOTSTRAP$ causes a single bit to be set in the segment header block.
This single bit being set causes ORA-00600 on instance
startup.You guessed it: the night before go live, they had a
junior DBA stop and restart the instance at 12:30am. Poor guy stayed
up all night, I got there around 6:00am, we found the cause and convinced
Oracle Support to dial in and BBED the problem into submission by 1:00pm.
MetaLink didn’t exist in those days — we had access to MetaLink’s
predecessor, called “WebIV”...Don’t change the stuff in the SYSTEM
tablespace, which includes the tablespace itself. Keep “foreign stuff”
(i.e. not belonging to SYS, SYSTEM, MDSYS, ORDSYS, OUTLN, etc) out of it and
just leave it alone.on 8/18/03 4:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i thought you should leave the system
table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System.you really
should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > >
From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM
11:19:23 EDT> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50
pct_increase in 9i?> > Better yet, use locally-managed
SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the> issue altogether?>
> > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:> > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace
using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k> > now it did that in the past,
but why not set it to zero?> > > > Ryan>
> > > > >
Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM
tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether?on 8/17/03
5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any idea why oracle has the
system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in
the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
Note:
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. Wang Trading
LLC and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to
monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the
views of any such entity.
Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Title: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Tim, WebIV? I must have skipped a generation; I used the OraSupport forum on CompuServe before the MetaLink. You had to subscribe to CompuServe; and it was accessible only through dial-up; so we had dial-up lines at our desk, had to buy external modems, and all that. And I thought WebIV was and still is only for Oracle Consulting and Support Staff. Arup - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Good point! Another war story...Some 6 years ago, during v7.3.3 timeframe, a DBA decided to modify INITIAL, NEXT, and PCTINCREASE of everything, including stuff in SYSTEM. Unfortunately, he chose first to do this in pre-PROD (to become PROD following week). Turns out he ran into a little-known bug (arent they all, at first?) whereby any ALTER TABLE to the table named SYS.BOOTSTRAP$ causes a single bit to be set in the segment header block. This single bit being set causes ORA-00600 on instance startup.You guessed it: the night before go live, they had a junior DBA stop and restart the instance at 12:30am. Poor guy stayed up all night, I got there around 6:00am, we found the cause and convinced Oracle Support to dial in and BBED the problem into submission by 1:00pm. MetaLink didnt exist in those days we had access to MetaLinks predecessor, called WebIV...Dont change the stuff in the SYSTEM tablespace, which includes the tablespace itself. Keep foreign stuff (i.e. not belonging to SYS, SYSTEM, MDSYS, ORDSYS, OUTLN, etc) out of it and just leave it alone.on 8/18/03 4:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System.you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?> > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the> issue altogether?> > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k> > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero?> > > > Ryan> > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether?on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Hi Mladen, Just to avoid any confusion, you have the *option* to create a LM System tablespace, the *default* is still DM. The ODCA uses the extent management local clause in it's default scripts but to create a database manually, you need to remember the clause. Whether it should use ASSM is somewhat more debatable... Cheers Richard - Original Message - To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 PM > Actually, from 9iR2, system tablespace is created as locally managed > autoallocate. They should have put in "SEGMENT MANAGEMENT AUTO" clause as > well, but hey, you can't always get what you want, but you can try sometimes. > > On 2003.08.18 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never > > touched System. > > > > you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > > > > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the > > > issue altogether? > > > > > > > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in > > 9i? I k > > > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mladen Gogala > Oracle DBA > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Mladen Gogala > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services > - > 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). > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Richard Foote INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - 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).
RE: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Title: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Another point of discussion - just what do you expect to gain by altering the SYSTEM tablespace's storage params? It is not a high volume tablespace - the O's part of I/O to this particular tablespace is very low. Altering storage params here are just simply a waste of time - there is no benefit to doing it. And if you are THAT anal in that you want all tablespaces to be the same, then you have more immediate problems!!! Tom Mercadante Oracle Certified Professional -Original Message-From: Tim Gorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:45 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?Good point! Another war story...Some 6 years ago, during v7.3.3 timeframe, a DBA decided to modify INITIAL, NEXT, and PCTINCREASE of everything, including stuff in SYSTEM. Unfortunately, he chose first to do this in pre-PROD (to become PROD following week). Turns out he ran into a little-known bug (aren’t they all, at first?) whereby any ALTER TABLE to the table named SYS.BOOTSTRAP$ causes a single bit to be set in the segment header block. This single bit being set causes ORA-00600 on instance startup.You guessed it: the night before go live, they had a junior DBA stop and restart the instance at 12:30am. Poor guy stayed up all night, I got there around 6:00am, we found the cause and convinced Oracle Support to dial in and BBED the problem into submission by 1:00pm. MetaLink didn’t exist in those days — we had access to MetaLink’s predecessor, called “WebIV”...Don’t change the stuff in the SYSTEM tablespace, which includes the tablespace itself. Keep “foreign stuff” (i.e. not belonging to SYS, SYSTEM, MDSYS, ORDSYS, OUTLN, etc) out of it and just leave it alone.on 8/18/03 4:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System.you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?> > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the> issue altogether?> > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k> > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero?> > > > Ryan> > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether?on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Title: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Good point! Another war story... Some 6 years ago, during v7.3.3 timeframe, a DBA decided to modify INITIAL, NEXT, and PCTINCREASE of everything, including stuff in SYSTEM. Unfortunately, he chose first to do this in pre-PROD (to become PROD following week). Turns out he ran into a little-known bug (aren’t they all, at first?) whereby any ALTER TABLE to the table named SYS.BOOTSTRAP$ causes a single bit to be set in the segment header block. This single bit being set causes ORA-00600 on instance startup. You guessed it: the night before go live, they had a junior DBA stop and restart the instance at 12:30am. Poor guy stayed up all night, I got there around 6:00am, we found the cause and convinced Oracle Support to dial in and BBED the problem into submission by 1:00pm. MetaLink didn’t exist in those days — we had access to MetaLink’s predecessor, called “WebIV”... Don’t change the stuff in the SYSTEM tablespace, which includes the tablespace itself. Keep “foreign stuff” (i.e. not belonging to SYS, SYSTEM, MDSYS, ORDSYS, OUTLN, etc) out of it and just leave it alone. on 8/18/03 4:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System. you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the > issue altogether? > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > Ryan > > > > > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether? on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Actually, from 9iR2, system tablespace is created as locally managed autoallocate. They should have put in "SEGMENT MANAGEMENT AUTO" clause as well, but hey, you can't always get what you want, but you can try sometimes. On 2003.08.18 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System. you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the > issue altogether? > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > Ryan > > > > > > -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mladen Gogala INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - 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).
Re: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
i thought you should leave the system table space to the defaults? Ive never touched System. you really should change system to locally managed tablespaces? > > From: Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/08/17 Sun PM 11:19:23 EDT > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? > > Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the > issue altogether? > > > on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k > > now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? > > > > Ryan > > > > > > Title: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether? on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?
Title: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i? Better yet, use locally-managed SYSTEM tablespace and dispense with the issue altogether? on 8/17/03 5:39 PM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea why oracle has the system tablespace using 50 pct_increase in 9i? I k now it did that in the past, but why not set it to zero? Ryan
