Re: optimal size for rollback

Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:11:28 +1000, Richard Foote said (and I quote):
> snip...
> And I agree, storage is relatively cheap, but ...
>
> Here in sunny Canberra, we're a Government town and most of the key sites
> here are Government. And the Australian government has gone through an
> outsourcing program (bless them) where many key sites have their IT
> infrastructure outsourced and controlled by the large IT giants. And guess
> what, getting additional disk isn't cheap, it's bloody and criminally
> expensive. And by the time you add all the redundancy disks costs, costs of
> maintenance, costs of implementation, costs of support, costs of breaking
> your IT requirements, etc, etc, etc. it's a case of "F&#*, how much !!".

Hehehe! Precisely.

>
> Outsourcing hasn't exactly been a great success ...
>
> But I digress.

No, you're on target. Spot on. The whole thing is a racket of the worst kind. And we are still being sold it's a great idea...

>
> One last point. Note that automatic undo management does extra work 'under
> the covers' which could be viewed as being sub-optimal. I haven't heard many
> that suggest using manual rollback segments is the way to go in 9i ...

and yet apparently they are used on the 9i benchmarks?

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam