Re: Windows ASM and DBCA in 10g

"Chris" <christian.antognini_at_trivadis.com> wrote in message news:40e1868a$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Howard
>
> > I meant to add, Chris, that I am sure you are right (apart from Connor
> > suggesting it might not be the whole issue), but that I don't see on
> Windows
> > at least how to control the instance name capitalisation... besides
which,
> I
> > don't believe it is documented anywhere that you *must* call your ASM
> > instances +ASM, so for there to be a surreptitious requirement to do so
> (as
> > seems, however, to be the case) is tantamount to a bug in my book.
>
> +ASM is the name used by DBCA if you let create an ASM instance. As I
wrote
> we had no problem with other tools when this name was used.
> The only thing I can suggest you is to let create the ASM instance from
> DBCA, analyze the configuration/scripts it generates...

Been there, done that... didn't help.

As I said right at the start, I'm pretty fluent in creating ASM instances manually, just as I am in creating them in DBCA. That I can do it one way should not preclude me (nor, and this is the real point, any user) from wanting or being able to do it, fully functionally, the other way. CLI or GUI: it should make no difference. That it *does* seem to make a difference is something I can live with and document accordingly... I was merely hoping it was my stupidity that was the issue and not an inherent limitation of the product. But it appears that it really is a, er, feature of the product. (Possibly. I still have to work out how Connor's work fits in to this picture).

Again, I agree that DBCA creates an instance called +ASM... but I have seen nothing in Oracle's documentation suggesting that when you create your own instances manually at the CLI that this is the only name you can practically use. If that is actually a practical requirement, it's either a product bug/limitation, or its a documentation bug that should be fixed.

So I'm not dismissing anything you've written: you've been very helpful. However, I'm not particularly seeking to find ways to get around these issues. I'm more in the business of simply trying to find out what the issues actually are. This one, of the ASM instance name, sounds like its a real issue that needs documenting as such.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 11:13:46 CDT