Re: Fssnap and Oracle 9i

Joel Garry wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:<41744501$0$20128$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>

>> 
>> The original poster wrote: "Will fssnap safely backup a running Oracle
>> database?" I wrote: "You can't just copy Oracle files hot. If that's what
>> fsnap is doing, it's doomed"
>> 
>> It was at that point you decided to remind everyone that Oracle can do
>> hot backups. We *know* that, Joel. Of course the guy could put all
>> tablespaces into hot backup mode and then fssnap. But that's not what he
>> was proposing to do, or asking about. His question clearly indicates that
>> he wants to know whether an fssnap backup *on its own* is safe as a
>> backup method.

Well, then. You're either stupid, or out to prove what a big intellect you have. And I know you're not stupid.

> Maybe you have some other source of magical
> knowledge about the fellow, but frankly, the questions in the original
> post implied strongly that _he *didn't know* that_. He's asking if
> you have to shut down an instance to make a backup, after all. The
> correct answer is, "no, as long as you follow the ordinary hot backup
> requirements."

He was actually asking whether he had to shut down HIS instance to make a backup using HIS TOOL OF CHOICE, namely fssnap. To which the correct answer is: "Yes, because it is an O/S tool that does not know about how to perform a hot backup correctly".

You can talk generalities if you wish, Joel. I was answering a specific question asked by a specific poster.

> That is a long way from what you wrote.

That is because the question you answered is a long way from the one that was actually asked.

Which is the entire point of my dispute with you. You trolled off to la-la land in order to conjure up a response which would make me look to be wrong and you so wise and enlightened. But you did not answer the question that was asked. And that is why our answers differ.

> So that makes what you wrote incorrect, and that is what I was
> responding to. If I misinterpreted the OP, fine, but if not, then you
> were indeed wrong because you read too much into the question and the
> response needed clarification.
>
> Either way, you seem to think I generally have it in for you, and I
> don't. I want this group to have correct information.

I can only conclude that you do indeed have it in for me. You have, after all, posted "enlightening comments", that prove how clever you are but don't actually add very much real content, as one-line addenda to an awful lot of posts, and not just mine.

I did not read *anything* into the original poster's question. It was you that did that by mentioning a hot backup technique he was not asking about.

And it's interesting that you want the *group* to have correct information, whereas I would rather the original poster received correct information. Which he got. Correct information comes to the group as a whole by answering the questions asked and not assuming things about the original poster that may or may not be true.

Stop playing games, Joel.

HJR Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 17:11:34 CDT