Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: rman question(allocating channels)
Yep its me answering a question for you for a change - I was able to bounce
your question off of Dinis (our RMAN guru) and he said: ( Yeah I could
have pretended that I knew the answer but I don't think you would have
fallen for that!)
Channels are streams. Basically when you have multiple channels (lets say 4 channel) you can write to take or disk with 4 streams at the same time, which means that you will be able to backup more datafiles concurrently. No channels are not related to CPU or destinations. Yes it makes sense that you allocate more channels because it will shorten you backup time but then again the more channels you use the more resources you will be using on the server that you are backing up the database. I hope this answers your question but if not please let me know.
P.S. Each channel will correspond to a session in the database that is being backed up.
-----Origin al Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:38 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I've tried to find this in the docs to no avail.
If I'm writing out an RMAN backup to one disk(yes this is not ideal), then does it make sense to allocate multiple channels?
Are multiple channels related to CPUs or to destinations?
thanks, joe
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Altizer, Bronwyn K.
INET: baltizer_at_trilegiant.com
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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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). Received on Wed Aug 28 2002 - 08:53:29 CDT
![]() |
![]() |