Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-09-07 Thread Mogens Nrgaard
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 (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



**
*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

Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-09-07 Thread Mladen Gogala
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?

2003-09-07 Thread Mogens Nørgaard
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: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread rgaffuri
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: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread Mladen Gogala
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: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread Tim Gorman
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 (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: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread Mercadante, Thomas F
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 immediateproblems!!!

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 (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?

2003-08-18 Thread Richard Foote
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?

2003-08-18 Thread Arup Nanda
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 (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?

2003-08-18 Thread Mladen Gogala
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 
(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

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 
LLCand 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: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread rgaffuri
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: Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-18 Thread Mladen Gogala
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 '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).




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

Re: system tablespace at 50 pct_increase in 9i?

2003-08-17 Thread Tim Gorman
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