Re: Fssnap and Oracle 9i

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:54:08 +1000
Message-Id: <41765fea$0$23894$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Holger Baer wrote:

> Howard J. Rogers wrote:

>> Holger Baer wrote:
>>

> [..]
> 

>>

>>>Now while your answer was precise and correct,

>>
>>
>> Thank you. I thought so too. Joel has, of course, said that it was "below
>> par", sub-standard and incorrect.
>>
>>

>>>it left me too
>>>wondering, why you didn't mention what Oracle offers to make
>>>hot backups working. It's just not you to leave that out.

>>
>>
>> Because the OP didn't ask about them. The context of his question was, I
>> have this tool. Will it do the job safely? Now, I could have mentioned
>> 'yes, if you write a begin backup script'. To my mind, and in my way of
>> looking at things, that is effectively a "no, not unless you do lots of
>> other hoop-jumping".

> 
> I've known you to give people not necessarily what they asked for, but
> instead told them the right questions, which in my opinion should include
> Oracle hot backups.

Of course. But then it comes down to what *I* consider to be pertinent advice to include in *my* replies. Others can then disagree with that, and that's not an issue. It's how they express their disagreement, and whether their disagreement produces a constructive outcome for the OP, or not.

You know, I have a Windows Scripting Host hot backup script on my website. That's from someone who these days will not recommend an installation of Oracle on Windows at all. Someone who acknowledges in that very article that to run the script, you'll have to tweak Norton Antivirus, because WSH is such a good vector for malware. And someone who wrote in that same article "I'd actually rather you didn't run [this script] at all. Use RMAN instead". I've thought about removing the article. But decided to leave it, because some people really won't use RMAN, so they might as well see what their own scripting efforts ought to be setting out to do. But I'm not ecstatic about that decision (and it was my own decision!! Yikes!!!)

It's a subtle subject. And how one chooses to answer a particular question depends on the nature of that particular question, what you see in it, and how you feel about the myriad possible answers you could give.

These days, I don't recommend hot backup scripts at all, unless you're running 8i. And then I recommend an upgrade! RMAN is the tool to use. So if you think Oracle hot backups should be included as options, we disagree. But we do it properly, politely, respectfully, and without (I hope) confusing anyone. So I am perfectly comfortable with that.

> That this includes 'lots of other hoop-jumping' is something you often
> take the time to painstakingly draw the big picture (I know I learned a
> lot from such posts) and don't mind at all.
> 
> Some time ago there was a discussion on how to recover through resetlogs,
> and I believe you wrote something a long the lines 'this is just a
> demonstration of, look how clever I can be by disobeying Oracles
> recommendations which are: after open resetlogs shutdown your instance and
> take a full cold backup'. IIRC it took you about 2 or 3 sentences to
> summarize what you need for recovery through resetlogs. Maybe the
> discussion was on something else and you just used this as an example, my
> memories ain't what they should be at my age ;-)

It's actually not a bad example. My usual line is: don't do resetlogs unless you absolutely have to, because they render prior backups and archives useless. I then have to add the proviso, to try and head off some smart alec who is bound to "correct" me, that actually prior backups *can* be used after a resetlogs, if you follow all the right procedures, and swap controlfiles half-way through the recovery.

But guess which bit of advice I'd rather not give to newbies and OPs, just in case they miss the real message here, which is 'avoid resetlogs and here's why'?

It's a perfect example of clouding a message because you know someone else will always feel the need to add a technical detail which might actually be right, but produces (or potentially produces) practically very wrong outcomes.

In this forum, at least, I think certain messages (and again, I think that which ones they are comes down to one's assessment of the poster and his or her apparent circumstances) need to be clear and unambiguous, not pedantically covering every corner of the respondant's ego.  

> 
> [...]

>> It's a difference in perspective, I suppose, and we are *all* entitled to
>> have them without one-liner attempts to make one party sound foolish or
>> incompetent for seeing it that way. In my estimation, and by my reading
>> of the original post, the guy wanted to know whether his backup tool
>> would work, as is, without additional scripting. And hence the answer I
>> gave him.

> 
> Yes, but somehow for the innocent bystander it looked like if fssnap is
> not oracle aware, then there won't be any way to use it in a backup
> scenario other than shutting down the instance. But I see what you mean.

I'm glad someone does!

[snip]

>> Look at the current 'can you make a table read-only' thread for an
>> example of useful, constructive, provocative "thread drift". Joel's
>> effort isn't anywhere in that league.
>>
>>
>> But whatever.
>>
>> In this Usenet world we live in, we have to put up with much worse than
>> Joel

>
> Yepp. There are still some eggs to fry ;-)

I was trying to think of a way of saying the same thing, but couldn't!! Nice one.

> 

>> from time to time. And I am over the entire discussion, especially since
>> the OP hasn't come back to enlighten the discussion any further (and who
>> can blame him -though that's another reason why I felt Joel's post was
>> completely unwarranted and unnecessary).

> 
> I'm sometimes wondering why OP's don't come back, but probably this 'grab
> and run' behaviour is what you're getting today. Serves'em right! :-)
> 

>>
>> Your thoughtful comments have indeed been worthwhile. I hope my response
>> shows some measure of similar thought: that I'm not just over-sensitive
>> or paranoid.

> 
> I feared since I've been commenting you a lot recently, you might start to
> think I've go on you. I don't, so your answer is much appreciated.

Oh, I don't mind people having a go. I'm not a saint, and I deserve it from time to time. It's confusing the innocent passers-by that gets right up my nostrils. Always has done. Always will.

Thanks again for a good contribution.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Oct 20 2004 - 07:54:08 CDT