Feed aggregator
Create Windows Symlinks to Vagrant Software Folder
Most Vagrant implementations have some derivative of software folder with file – put_software_here.txt
It does not make sense to have to copy software to the folder and then to delete afterwards repeatedly for every new Vagrant build.
Luckily, there is a way to create symlinks to a centralized software location.
Start vagrant failed – ERROR: gi_software does not exist because software folder was purposely deleted for demo.
Note: Using Git BASH for Windows.
resetlogs@ghost MINGW64 /g/oracle/vagrant-boxes/OracleFPP (master) $ ls -l total 28 drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 config/ drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 images/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 1896 Feb 22 06:35 LICENSE.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 10645 Feb 22 06:35 README.md drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 scripts/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 5449 Feb 22 06:35 THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.txt drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 userscripts/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 16610 Feb 22 06:45 Vagrantfile resetlogs@ghost MINGW64 /g/oracle/vagrant-boxes/OracleFPP (master) $ vagrant up ERROR: gi_software does not exist resetlogs@ghost MINGW64 /g/oracle/vagrant-boxes/OracleFPP (master)
Create symlinks from Windows command line.
C:\Windows\System32>mklink
Creates a symbolic link.
MKLINK [[/D] | [/H] | [/J]] Link Target
/D Creates a directory symbolic link. Default is a file
symbolic link.
/H Creates a hard link instead of a symbolic link.
/J Creates a Directory Junction.
Link Specifies the new symbolic link name.
Target Specifies the path (relative or absolute) that the new link
refers to.
C:\Windows\System32>mklink /J "G:\oracle\vagrant-boxes\OracleFPP\ORCL_software" "E:\ORCL_software"
Junction created for G:\oracle\vagrant-boxes\OracleFPP\ORCL_software <<===>> E:\ORCL_software
C:\Windows\System32>
Read more about it: The Complete Guide to Creating Symbolic Links (aka Symlinks) on Windows
Review symlinks and start vagrant successfully:
resetlogs@ghost MINGW64 /g/oracle/vagrant-boxes/OracleFPP (master) $ ls -l total 28 drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 config/ drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 images/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 1896 Feb 22 06:35 LICENSE.txt lrwxrwxrwx 1 dinh 197121 16 Feb 22 07:05 ORCL_software -> /e/ORCL_software/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 10645 Feb 22 06:35 README.md drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 scripts/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 5449 Feb 22 06:35 THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.txt drwxr-xr-x 1 dinh 197121 0 Feb 22 06:35 userscripts/ -rw-r--r-- 1 dinh 197121 16610 Feb 22 06:45 Vagrantfile resetlogs@ghost MINGW64 /g/oracle/vagrant-boxes/OracleFPP (master) $ vagrant up getting Proxy Configuration from Host... Bringing machine 'host1' up with 'virtualbox' provider... Bringing machine 'host2' up with 'virtualbox' provider... ==> host1: Importing base box 'ol74'...
Plan Change Monitor goes off on SQL Analyze query
Last night, the plan change monitor script we have setup on one of our production databases alerted us about query with a SQL Analyze hint. It looked weird.
The query has sql_id 48tfz5d37xk28 and starts like this:
/* SQL Analyze(3141,1) */ select ...The weird thing is the output of my sqlstat3.sql script for this sql_id value:
SQL_ID PLAN_HASH_VALUE END_INTERVAL_TIME EXECUTIONS_DELTA Elapsed Average ms
------------- --------------- ------------------------- ---------------- ------------------
48tfz5d37xk28 2311822442 20-FEB-20 10.00.28.096 PM 1 15836.016
48tfz5d37xk28 3597180003 20-FEB-20 10.00.28.096 PM 1 4398.618
48tfz5d37xk28 3992115155 20-FEB-20 11.00.01.054 PM 4 57198.8163
48tfz5d37xk28 3597180003 20-FEB-20 11.00.01.054 PM 3 74803.004
48tfz5d37xk28 2311822442 20-FEB-20 11.00.01.054 PM 4 65471.2243
48tfz5d37xk28 2172763952 20-FEB-20 11.00.01.054 PM 4 57206.2353
48tfz5d37xk28 2331870706 20-FEB-20 11.00.01.054 PM 4 57479.7398
It looks like one of the database’s built in processes was running this query with various plans. Plan_hash_value 3992115155 tripped the alert. I guess it was 10 times as long as plan 3597180003. The plan change monitor script could be improved in many ways to eliminate false positives like this, but I just added a condition to exclude all queries run by user SYS:
258c258,259
< m.sql_id not in ('dkqs29nsj23jq','58r2wgh5xx1bg','3m2su959r6tp8','3z60x9386n1v8','bx81s3m9zxutb','czwbdwxx5aqsk','001wbydnwaa7n','6quugay8yt73u')
---
> m.sql_id not in
('dkqs29nsj23jq','58r2wgh5xx1bg','3m2su959r6tp8','3z60x9386n1v8','bx81s3m9zxutb','czwbdwxx5aqsk','001wbydnwaa7n','6quugay8yt73u')
and s.username <> 'SYS'
This is the first time I remember seeing something like this cause an alert, but the workaround was easy.
Bobby
Review: Blockchain for dummies
The chapters 1 & 2 describe the basic of blockchain technology.
From my point of view, this part is a bit too shallow, because there is no single formular inside this book ;-)
But there are some nice illustrations given:
and the differences between a public blockchain and corporate blockchains are good explained including their consequences.
Chapter 3 is about where companies can use blockchains. This chapter i did not understand. It is all about frictions which companies have to overcome. But these frictions are not special to blockchain (like "innovation restrictions").
In chapter 4 some examples are shown. These examples are very universal examples, which are too abstract in my eyes.
Chapter 5 contains information about a project of the Linux Foundation: Hyperledger.
This is very nice opening for https://www.hyperledger.org/.
Chapter 6 comes up with ten steps to your first blockchain application.
Skippable.
My conclusion: a very nice book and really ok for free. But I wouldn't spend any money on it...
Downloading ppts from sessions
We Are so Appreciative for the Show of Support!
Ken Glueck, Executive Vice President, Oracle—Feb 20, 2020
NOTE: Before we turn to the more than 30 amicus briefs filed in support of Oracle at the Supreme Court, we are obligated to highlight the conduct of Google’s head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker. Over the past few months, Walker led a coercion campaign against companies and organizations that were likely to file on Oracle’s behalf to persuade them to stay silent. We are aware of more than half a dozen contacts by Mr. Walker (or his representatives) to likely amici, but we probably only heard of a small piece of his efforts.
In our previous posts we detailed the facts in Google v. Oracle: Google copied verbatim 11,000 lines of Java code and then broke Java’s interoperability. We explained that Google knew fully that the Java code was subject to copyright but decided to copy it anyway and “make enemies along the way.” We discussed IBM’s Jailbreak initiative, which was aborted because everyone understood—including Google and IBM—that Sun’s code was subject to a copyright license.
We explained how there was never any confusion in the industry about how copyright was applied to software and no contemporaneous discussion whatsoever distinguishing between some code that’s copyrightable and other code that isn’t. All of this parsing of code was invented after the fact by Google. We discussed the impossibility of the Supreme Court drawing lines between some code and not other code (on a case-by-case basis), without undermining copyright protection for all computer programs, which is exactly Google’s intent. Lastly, we explained that Google’s business model is predicated on monetizing the content of others so its economic interests are correlated to weak intellectual property protection. And that is exactly why most members of the technology community declined to file briefs on Google’s behalf.
More than 30 businesses, organizations, and individuals filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court. The numerous amicus briefs filed on our behalf largely reflect actual owners of copyrights that have a direct stake in the outcome of this matter, and I wanted to highlight a few of them here. Most importantly, the totality of the briefs make an overwhelming case for the court to reject Google’s attempt to retroactively carve itself out of the law.
To start, the United States Solicitor General filed a brief in support of Oracle on behalf of the United States Government. The Solicitor General’s office will also participate in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, making clear that longstanding U.S. intellectual property policy is fundamentally at odds with Google’s position. It’s really hard to overstate how strong the Solicitor General’s brief is on Oracle’s behalf. For example, the SG states “Contrary to [Google]’s contention, the Copyright Office has never endorsed the kind of copying in which [Google] engaged." … "[Google] declined to take [the open source] or any other license, despite 'lengthy licensing negotiations' with [Oracle]. Instead, [Google] simply appropriated the material it wanted." And, “[T]he fair use doctrine does not permit a new market entrant to copy valuable parts of an established work simply to attract fans to its own competing commercial product. To the contrary, copying ‘to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh’ actively disserves copyright’s goals.”
“[Google’s] approach [to copyrightability] is especially misguided because the particular post-creation changed circumstance on which it relies—i.e., developers’ acquired familiarity with the calls used to invoke various methods in the Java Standard Library—is a direct result of the Library’s marketplace success.” The SG continued, “Google designed its Android platform in a manner that made it incompatible with the Java platform. Pet. App. 46a n.11. Petitioner thus is not seeking to ensure that its new products are compatible with a ‘legacy product’ (Pet. Br. 26). Petitioner instead created a competing platform and copied thousands of lines of code from the Java Standard Library in order to attract software developers familiar with respondent’s work.”
And the SG stated, “The court of appeals correctly held that petitioner’s verbatim copying of respondent’s original computer code into a competing commercial product was not fair use.” Lastly, “the record contained ‘overwhelming’ evidence that petitioner’s copying harmed the market for the Java platform.”
A brief by several songwriters and the Songwriters Guild explains that much like Oracle’s Java software, a large portion of music streams on YouTube are misappropriated for the good of Google and Google alone—“Through YouTube, Google profits directly from verbatim copies of Amici’s own works. These copies are unauthorized, unlicensed, and severely under-monetized.”
A brief filed by Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, and the American Association of Independent Music makes clear that its “members depend on an appropriately balanced fair use doctrine that furthers the purposes of copyright law, including the rights to control the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, to create derivative works, and to license the creation of derivative works.”
Briefs were filed expressing similar concerns from a broad spectrum of the creative community, including journalists, book publishers, photographers, authors, and the motion picture industry. Google’s attempts to retroactively justify a clear act of infringement with novel theories of software copyright and fair use have alarmed nearly every segment of the artistic and creative community.
Another amicus brief from the News Media Alliance (over 2,000 news media organizations), explains how Google Search, Google News and other online platforms appropriate vast quantities of its members’ journalistic output, and reproduces it to displace the original creative content. They point out that, as journalists, they often sit on both sides of the “fair use” defense, but warn that they “cannot stand silent when entire digital industries are built, and technology companies seek to achieve and maintain dominance, by the overly aggressive assertion of fair use as Google does in this case.”
And USTelecom, the national trade association representing the nation’s broadband industry, including technology providers, innovators, suppliers, and manufacturers. USTelecom notes that its members are poised to invest $350 billion in their software-driven networks over the next several years, laying the foundation for 5G. Software interfaces are also important for network providers to “enable interoperability among technologies, networks, and devices,” and “while telecommunications providers must share access to their software interfaces, they also must retain their exclusive property rights in their implementation of these interfaces if they are to ensure network security and resiliency, protect their customers’ privacy, innovate and compete.”
We were pleased that some of the most prominent names in technology—who were contemporaneous witnesses to Google’s theft—have filed amicus briefs in support Oracle’s position, including Scott McNealy, the longtime CEO of Sun Microsystems, and Joe Tucci, the longtime CEO of EMC Corporation. Mr. Tucci states, “as the numbers and ever-increasing success show, the system is working. Accepting Google’s invitation to upend that system by eliminating copyright protection for creative and original computer software code would not make the system better—it would instead have sweeping and harmful effects throughout the software industry.”
Several of our amici note in their briefs that the Constitution includes copyright protection in Article I, Section 8. As Consumers’ Research explains in their brief, “to the Founders, copyrights were not just a way to encourage innovation, but also to protect people’s inherent rights in the fruits of their labor. Any conception of copyright that ignores the latter is both incomplete and inconsistent with the original understanding of the Copyright Clause.”
One of the key points Oracle makes in our brief to the Court is the clear Congressional intent and action to provide full copyright protection to software, and the longstanding refusal by Congress to create any distinctions between different types of software code (such as “interfaces”).
Several of our amici reinforce this fact, none less authoritative than the former Senate and House Judiciary Chairmen. Former Senators Orrin Hatch and Dennis DeConcini, and former Congressman Bob Goodlatte make it clear that Google’s invitation to the Court to carve out some ill-defined category of “interfaces” from the Copyright Act’s full protection of all software code is contrary to the intent of Congress and plain language of the statute. According to the former Chairmen, “[B]oth the text and history of the Copyright Act show that Congress accorded computer programs full copyright protection, with no carve-out for some undefined subset of software.”
Furthermore, the former Members state, it would be beyond the purview of the Court to respond to Google and its amici’s policy arguments in favor of creating new standards of copyrightability and fair use for different, loosely defined categories of software. “This Court should not undermine [Congress’s] legislative judgment … by creating the loopholes to copyrightability and fair use that Google requests.”
The Members further point out, “to the extent that Google has a different, less-protective vision for the federal copyright regime, it is ‘free to seek action from Congress.’ (quoting the Solicitor General). Thus far, Congress has not seen fit to take such action, notwithstanding its recent comprehensive review of the federal copyright laws, which directly examined the scope of copyright protection and technological innovation. This Court should not diminish copyright protections for computer programs where Congress, as is its constitutional prerogative, has chosen to refrain from doing so for four decades.”
The Members’ points are given further emphasis by the extremely important brief from Professor Arthur Miller, who was a Presidential appointee to the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”), where he served on the Software Subcommittee. Professor Miller forcefully rebuts Google’s contention that the Java code it copied should be denied protection either because it was so popular or because it was in some category of un-protectable software it refers to as “interfaces.”
Congress had good reason not to enact a popularity exception to copyright. As an initial matter, such an exception would lure the courts into a hopeless exercise in line-drawing: Just how popular must a work become before the creator is penalized with loss of protection?… Nor does calling the copied material an “interface” aid in the line-drawing exercise. Though that term “may seem precise * * * it really has no specific meaning in programming. Certainly, it has no meaning that has any relevance to copyright principles.” (citing his seminal Harvard Law Review article on software copyright). “Any limitation on the protection of ‘interfaces’ thus would be a limitation on the protection of much of the valuable expression in programs, and would invite plagiarists to label as an ‘interface’ whatever they have chosen to copy without permission.” Ibid. More importantly, a popularity exception would eviscerate the goal of the Copyright Act, which is to promote advancements. “The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort.” Sony v. Universal City Studios. But advance too far and create widely desired work, petitioner warns, and risk losing copyright protection altogether; anyone will be able to copy the previously protected material by claiming that doing so was “necessary.” That logic is head-scratching. “[P]romoting the unauthorized copying of interfaces penalizes the creative effort of the original designer, something that runs directly counter to the core purposes of copyright law because it may freeze or substantially impede human innovation and technological growth.” (citing Miller Harvard Law Review article).
This history of strong copyright protection is further explained in the brief by the Committee for Justice: “The framers of the U.S. Constitution designed that document to protect the right to property. It was understood that strong property rights were fundamental to freedom and prosperity. The Constitution’s Copyright Clause is a critical part of this project. The clause empowers Congress to enact laws to protect intellectual property, which was understood to be worthy of protection in the same sense and to the same degree that tangible property is. Congress has taken up the task by enacting a series of Copyright Acts that have steadily expanded the protection afforded intellectual property. This, in turn, has led to a robust and thriving market for intellectual property.”
Likewise, the American Conservative Union Foundation, Internet Accountability Project, and American Legislative Exchange Council all recount the long history of copyright protections, going back to the Constitution, and the importance of maintaining a system of strong intellectual property rights. They also weigh-in against Google’s fair use defense.
Similarly the Hudson Institute makes the point that if the Supreme Court were to adopt Google’s breathtakingly expansive view of fair use, it would “provide a roadmap to foreign actors like China to circumvent U.S. and international copyright protection for computer code and other works. Such a roadmap, if adopted by this Court, will remove the brighter lines and greater clarity provided by the decision below, and would eliminate a significant tool for private and governmental enforcement of IP rights.”
In separate briefs, two large software companies, Synopsys and SAS Institute, explain how the use of software code and “interfaces” actually work in the real world. Synopsis explains that the purpose of its brief is “to challenge the notion, offered by Google and its amici, that the copying of someone else’s code is a mainstay of the computer programming world. It is simply not true that ‘everybody does it,’ and that software piracy allows for lawful innovative entrepreneurship, as Google suggests.
SAS takes head-on the absurdity of Google’s professed interest in “interoperability” as the pretense for its unlicensed use of Oracle’s code. “Google copied the software interfaces not because it wanted Android applications to interoperate with Java, but so it could attract Java programmers for Android to replace Java. ‘Unrebutted evidence’ showed ‘that Google specifically designed Android to be incompatible with the Java platform and not allow for interoperability with Java programs.’ (citing Fed. Circuit decision). No case has found fair use where the defendant copied to produce an incompatible product.”
SAS also provides a powerful rebuttal to Google’s request for the Court to create new judicial carve-out from the Copyright Act for software “interfaces.” “There are unlimited ways to write interfaces, and nothing justifies removing them from what the Copyright Act expressly protects. To the contrary, the user-friendly expressive choices Sun made became critical to Java’s success. The thousands of lines of Java declaring code and the organization Google copied are intricate, creative expression. … The creativity is undeniable. ‘Google’s own ‘Java guru’ conceded that there can be ‘creativity and artistry even in a single method declaration.’” (citing Fed. Circuit decision) SAS goes on to provide detailed examples of the creative expression in declaring code.
I’ll conclude with the powerful brief of the former Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman. Mr. Oman forcefully rebuts the “sky is falling” rhetoric of Google and its amici regarding copyrights and software.
Copyright protection has spurred greater creativity, competition, and technological advancement, fueling an unprecedented period of intellectual growth and one of America’s greatest economic sectors today—software development. While Congress is of course free to revisit the application of copyright to software if it believes changes to the current regime are warranted, there is no basis for this Court to assume that policymaking role here. Instead, this Court should give effect to Congress’s intent, as embodied in the 1976 Act and its subsequent amendments, that traditional copyright principles apply to software just as these principles apply to other works. Applying those principles to the record in this case, the Federal Circuit properly concluded that Google’s conceded copying of the APIs infringed Oracle’s copyrights. While the technology at issue may be novel, the result that such free riding is not allowed is as old as copyright law itself.
We are grateful for this diverse, influential group of more than 30 amici, which we are certain will provide important, valuable insight to the Court in its deliberations.
We know that many of them have spoken up despite Google’s campaign of intimidation, which makes us even more appreciative.
Handy TensorFlow.js API for Client-Side ML Development
Read more - Handy TensorFlow.js API for Client-Side ML Development.
OCID & Its Importance In Oracle Cloud (OCI)
Most of the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) resources are assigned with a unique ID called Oracle Cloud Identifier (OCID). It is used to identify each resource of an Oracle Infrastructure uniquely. Check out K21 Academy’s blog post at https://k21academy.com/oci62 that covers: • Overview Of OCID • OCID Syntax • How To Find The OCID Of […]
The post OCID & Its Importance In Oracle Cloud (OCI) appeared first on Oracle Trainings for Apps & Fusion DBA.
Simplify RMAN Restore With Meaningful Tag
Here is a simple demo for how to restore RMAN backup in case of failed migration using RMAN tag.
List backup from File System:
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ ls -alrt /u01/backup/*MIGRATION* -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 12886016 Feb 18 21:56 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1cuosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_44 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 1073152 Feb 18 21:56 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1duosf58_1_1_MIGRATION_45 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 112263168 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1buosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_43 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 212926464 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1auosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_42 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 2946560 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1euosf61_1_1_MIGRATION_46 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 114688 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1fuosf63_1_1_MIGRATION_47 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 1114112 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1guosf64_1_1_MIGRATION_48 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 3584 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1iuosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_50 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 2946560 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1huosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_49 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 1114112 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1juosf6a_1_1_MIGRATION_51 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 3584 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 114688 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1luosf6e_1_1_MIGRATION_53 -rw-r----- 1 oracle oinstall 1114112 Feb 18 21:57 /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1muosf6f_1_1_MIGRATION_54 [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
List backup from RMAN:
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ rman target /
Recovery Manager: Release 12.2.0.1.0 - Production on Wed Feb 19 04:21:17 2020
Copyright (c) 1982, 2017, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
connected to target database: HAWK (DBID=3291419015)
RMAN> list backup summary tag='MIGRATION';
List of Backups
===============
Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag
------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ---
39 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:52 1 1 YES MIGRATION
40 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:56 1 1 YES MIGRATION
41 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:11 1 1 YES MIGRATION
42 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:17 1 1 YES MIGRATION
43 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:22 1 1 YES MIGRATION
44 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:23 1 1 YES MIGRATION
45 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:25 1 1 YES MIGRATION
46 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:27 1 1 YES MIGRATION
47 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:27 1 1 YES MIGRATION
48 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:31 1 1 YES MIGRATION
49 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32 1 1 YES MIGRATION
50 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:34 1 1 YES MIGRATION
52 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:36 1 1 YES MIGRATION
RMAN> list backup of database summary tag='MIGRATION';
List of Backups
===============
Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag
------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ---
39 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:52 1 1 YES MIGRATION
40 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:56 1 1 YES MIGRATION
41 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:11 1 1 YES MIGRATION
42 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:17 1 1 YES MIGRATION
RMAN> list backup of archivelog all summary tag='MIGRATION';
List of Backups
===============
Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag
------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ---
43 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:22 1 1 YES MIGRATION
46 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:27 1 1 YES MIGRATION
47 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:27 1 1 YES MIGRATION
49 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32 1 1 YES MIGRATION
RMAN> list backup of controlfile summary tag='MIGRATION';
List of Backups
===============
Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag
------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ---
45 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:25 1 1 YES MIGRATION
48 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:31 1 1 YES MIGRATION
52 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:36 1 1 YES MIGRATION
RMAN> list backup of spfile summary tag='MIGRATION';
List of Backups
===============
Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag
------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ---
44 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:23 1 1 YES MIGRATION
50 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:34 1 1 YES MIGRATION
RMAN> list backupset 42,49,50,52;
List of Backup Sets
===================
BS Key Type LV Size Device Type Elapsed Time Completion Time
------- ---- -- ---------- ----------- ------------ --------------------
42 Incr 0 203.05M DISK 00:00:29 2020-FEB-18 21:57:17
BP Key: 42 Status: AVAILABLE Compressed: YES Tag: MIGRATION
Piece Name: /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1auosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_42
Keep: BACKUP_LOGS Until: 2020-AUG-18 21:56:48
List of Datafiles in backup set 42
File LV Type Ckp SCN Ckp Time Abs Fuz SCN Sparse Name
---- -- ---- ---------- -------------------- ----------- ------ ----
1 0 Incr 1428959 2020-FEB-18 21:56:48 NO /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_system_h4s874gt_.dbf
BS Key Size Device Type Elapsed Time Completion Time
------- ---------- ----------- ------------ --------------------
49 3.00K DISK 00:00:00 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32
BP Key: 49 Status: AVAILABLE Compressed: YES Tag: MIGRATION
Piece Name: /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52
Keep: BACKUP_LOGS Until: 2020-AUG-18 21:57:32
List of Archived Logs in backup set 49
Thrd Seq Low SCN Low Time Next SCN Next Time
---- ------- ---------- -------------------- ---------- ---------
1 3 1429002 2020-FEB-18 21:57:26 1429040 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32
BS Key Type LV Size Device Type Elapsed Time Completion Time
------- ---- -- ---------- ----------- ------------ --------------------
50 Full 96.00K DISK 00:00:00 2020-FEB-18 21:57:34
BP Key: 50 Status: AVAILABLE Compressed: YES Tag: MIGRATION
Piece Name: /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1luosf6e_1_1_MIGRATION_53
Keep: BACKUP_LOGS Until: 2020-AUG-18 21:57:33
SPFILE Included: Modification time: 2020-FEB-18 21:51:45
SPFILE db_unique_name: HAWK
BS Key Type LV Size Device Type Elapsed Time Completion Time
------- ---- -- ---------- ----------- ------------ --------------------
52 Full 1.05M DISK 00:00:01 2020-FEB-18 21:57:36
BP Key: 52 Status: AVAILABLE Compressed: YES Tag: MIGRATION
Piece Name: /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1muosf6f_1_1_MIGRATION_54
Keep: BACKUP_LOGS Until: 2020-AUG-18 21:57:35
Control File Included: Ckp SCN: 1429047 Ckp time: 2020-FEB-18 21:57:35
RMAN>
You are probably wondering why BS 49 with Piece Name: /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52 contains archivelog?
RMAN backup script:
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ cat /u01/backup/backup_keep.rman
spool log to /u01/backup/rman_keep_backup_migration.log
connect target;
set echo on
show all;
run {
allocate channel c1 device type disk format '/u01/backup/%d_%I_%T_%U_MIGRATION_%s' MAXPIECESIZE 2G MAXOPENFILES 1;
allocate channel c2 device type disk format '/u01/backup/%d_%I_%T_%U_MIGRATION_%s' MAXPIECESIZE 2G MAXOPENFILES 1;
allocate channel c3 device type disk format '/u01/backup/%d_%I_%T_%U_MIGRATION_%s' MAXPIECESIZE 2G MAXOPENFILES 1;
backup as compressed backupset incremental level 0 filesperset 1 check logical database
keep until time 'ADD_MONTHS(SYSDATE,6)' TAG='MIGRATION';
backup as compressed backupset archivelog from time 'trunc(sysdate)'
filesperset 8
keep until time 'ADD_MONTHS(SYSDATE,6)' TAG='MIGRATION';
}
run {
allocate channel c1 device type disk format '/u01/backup/CTL_%d_%I_%T_%U_MIGRATION_%s';
backup as compressed backupset current controlfile
keep until time 'ADD_MONTHS(SYSDATE,6)' TAG='MIGRATION';
}
LIST BACKUP OF DATABASE SUMMARY TAG='MIGRATION';
LIST BACKUP OF ARCHIVELOG ALL SUMMARY TAG='MIGRATION';
LIST BACKUP OF CONTROLFILE TAG='MIGRATION';
report schema;
exit
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
RMAN backup log snippet:
allocated channel: c1 channel c1: SID=57 device type=DISK Starting backup at 2020-FEB-18 21:57:30 backup will be obsolete on date 2020-AUG-18 21:57:30 archived logs required to recover from this backup will be backed up channel c1: starting compressed full datafile backup set channel c1: specifying datafile(s) in backup set including current control file in backup set channel c1: starting piece 1 at 2020-FEB-18 21:57:31 channel c1: finished piece 1 at 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32 piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1juosf6a_1_1_MIGRATION_51 tag=MIGRATION comment=NONE channel c1: backup set complete, elapsed time: 00:00:01 current log archived backup will be obsolete on date 2020-AUG-18 21:57:32 archived logs required to recover from this backup will be backed up channel c1: starting compressed archived log backup set channel c1: specifying archived log(s) in backup set ******* input archived log thread=1 sequence=3 RECID=30 STAMP=1032731852 ******* channel c1: starting piece 1 at 2020-FEB-18 21:57:32 channel c1: finished piece 1 at 2020-FEB-18 21:57:33 piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52 tag=MIGRATION comment=NONE channel c1: backup set complete, elapsed time: 00:00:01
Restore backup from RMAN:
RMAN> startup force nomount; Oracle instance started Total System Global Area 805306368 bytes Fixed Size 8625856 bytes Variable Size 314573120 bytes Database Buffers 478150656 bytes Redo Buffers 3956736 bytes RMAN> restore controlfile from '/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1muosf6f_1_1_MIGRATION_54'; Starting restore at 2020-FEB-19 03:41:37 allocated channel: ORA_DISK_1 channel ORA_DISK_1: SID=35 device type=DISK channel ORA_DISK_1: restoring control file channel ORA_DISK_1: restore complete, elapsed time: 00:00:01 output file name=/u02/fra/HAWK/controlfile/o1_mf_h4r8xqh6_.ctl Finished restore at 2020-FEB-19 03:41:38 RMAN> alter database mount; RMAN> catalog start with '/u01/backup' noprompt; RMAN> restore database preview summary from tag='MIGRATION'; Starting restore at 2020-FEB-19 03:43:05 using channel ORA_DISK_1 List of Backups =============== Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag ------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- --- 42 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:17 1 1 YES MIGRATION 41 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:11 1 1 YES MIGRATION 39 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:52 1 1 YES MIGRATION 40 B 0 A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:56:56 1 1 YES MIGRATION List of Backups =============== Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag ------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- --- 47 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-18 21:57:27 1 1 YES MIGRATION recovery will be done up to SCN 1428959 Media recovery start SCN is 1428959 Recovery must be done beyond SCN 1428964 to clear datafile fuzziness Finished restore at 2020-FEB-19 03:43:05 RMAN> restore database from tag='MIGRATION'; RMAN> recover database until scn 1428965; Starting recover at 2020-FEB-19 03:44:45 using channel ORA_DISK_1 RMAN-00571: =========================================================== RMAN-00569: =============== ERROR MESSAGE STACK FOLLOWS =============== RMAN-00571: =========================================================== RMAN-03002: failure of recover command at 02/19/2020 03:44:45 RMAN-20208: UNTIL CHANGE is before RESETLOGS change RMAN> list incarnation of database; List of Database Incarnations DB Key Inc Key DB Name DB ID STATUS Reset SCN Reset Time ------- ------- -------- ---------------- --- ---------- ---------- 1 1 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1 2017-JAN-26 13:52:29 2 2 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1408558 2020-FEB-18 18:49:45 3 3 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1424305 2020-FEB-18 20:02:49 4 4 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1425161 2020-FEB-18 20:19:50 5 5 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1425162 2020-FEB-18 20:33:05 6 6 HAWK 3291419015 PARENT 1426203 2020-FEB-18 21:13:15 7 7 HAWK 3291419015 CURRENT 1428966 2020-FEB-18 22:05:54 RMAN> recover database until scn 1428967; Starting recover at 2020-FEB-19 03:47:41 using channel ORA_DISK_1 starting media recovery channel ORA_DISK_1: starting archived log restore to default destination channel ORA_DISK_1: restoring archived log archived log thread=1 sequence=1 channel ORA_DISK_1: reading from backup piece /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1huosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_49 channel ORA_DISK_1: piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1huosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_49 tag=MIGRATION channel ORA_DISK_1: restored backup piece 1 channel ORA_DISK_1: restore complete, elapsed time: 00:00:01 archived log file name=/u02/oradata/HAWK/archivelog/2020_02_19/o1_mf_1_1_h4s8gfjc_.arc thread=1 sequence=1 archived log file name=/u02/oradata/HAWK/archivelog/2020_02_19/o1_mf_1_1_h4rx8c8b_.arc thread=1 sequence=1 channel default: deleting archived log(s) archived log file name=/u02/oradata/HAWK/archivelog/2020_02_19/o1_mf_1_1_h4s8gfjc_.arc RECID=32 STAMP=1032752861 media recovery complete, elapsed time: 00:00:00 Finished recover at 2020-FEB-19 03:47:42 RMAN> alter database open resetlogs; Statement processed RMAN> report schema; Report of database schema for database with db_unique_name HAWK List of Permanent Datafiles =========================== File Size(MB) Tablespace RB segs Datafile Name ---- -------- -------------------- ------- ------------------------ 1 800 SYSTEM YES /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_system_h4s874gt_.dbf 3 470 SYSAUX NO /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_sysaux_h4s86of7_.dbf 4 70 UNDOTBS1 YES /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_undotbs1_h4s86kbl_.dbf 7 5 USERS NO /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_users_h4s86ncz_.dbf List of Temporary Files ======================= File Size(MB) Tablespace Maxsize(MB) Tempfile Name ---- -------- -------------------- ----------- -------------------- 1 20 TEMP 32767 /u02/oradata/HAWK/datafile/o1_mf_temp_h4s8jc3n_.tmp RMAN> delete force noprompt backup tag='MIGRATION'; using target database control file instead of recovery catalog allocated channel: ORA_DISK_1 channel ORA_DISK_1: SID=53 device type=DISK List of Backup Pieces BP Key BS Key Pc# Cp# Status Device Type Piece Name ------- ------- --- --- ----------- ----------- ---------- 39 39 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1cuosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_44 40 40 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1duosf58_1_1_MIGRATION_45 41 41 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1buosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_43 42 42 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1auosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_42 43 43 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1euosf61_1_1_MIGRATION_46 44 44 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1fuosf63_1_1_MIGRATION_47 45 45 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1guosf64_1_1_MIGRATION_48 46 46 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1iuosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_50 47 47 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1huosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_49 48 48 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1juosf6a_1_1_MIGRATION_51 49 49 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52 50 50 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1luosf6e_1_1_MIGRATION_53 52 52 1 1 AVAILABLE DISK /u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1muosf6f_1_1_MIGRATION_54 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1cuosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_44 RECID=39 STAMP=1032731809 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1duosf58_1_1_MIGRATION_45 RECID=40 STAMP=1032731816 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1buosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_43 RECID=41 STAMP=1032731808 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1auosf50_1_1_MIGRATION_42 RECID=42 STAMP=1032731808 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1euosf61_1_1_MIGRATION_46 RECID=43 STAMP=1032731841 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1fuosf63_1_1_MIGRATION_47 RECID=44 STAMP=1032731843 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1guosf64_1_1_MIGRATION_48 RECID=45 STAMP=1032731845 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1iuosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_50 RECID=46 STAMP=1032731847 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1huosf67_1_1_MIGRATION_49 RECID=47 STAMP=1032731847 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1juosf6a_1_1_MIGRATION_51 RECID=48 STAMP=1032731851 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1kuosf6c_1_1_MIGRATION_52 RECID=49 STAMP=1032731852 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1luosf6e_1_1_MIGRATION_53 RECID=50 STAMP=1032731854 deleted backup piece backup piece handle=/u01/backup/CTL_HAWK_3291419015_20200218_1muosf6f_1_1_MIGRATION_54 RECID=52 STAMP=1032752561 Deleted 13 objects RMAN> exit Recovery Manager complete. [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ ls -alrt /u01/backup/ total 28 drwxrwxr-x 6 oracle oinstall 4096 Feb 18 19:11 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle oinstall 1104 Feb 18 20:40 backup_keep.rman -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle oinstall 12346 Feb 18 21:57 rman_keep_backup_migration.log drwxr-xr-x 2 oracle oinstall 4096 Feb 19 04:28 . [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
Just a crazy idea.
Keep the same backup tag for all backups until the next level 0.
Backup TAG for daily level 0 backup:
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ echo "$(date +%Y%b%d)" 2020Feb19 [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
Backup TAG for weekly level 0 backup
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ echo "$(date +%Y%b)_WK$(date +%U)" 2020Feb_WK07 [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
Backup TAG for monthly level 0 backup
[oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$ echo "$(date +%Y%b)" 2020Feb [oracle@db-fs-1 ~]$
Tag: ARCH for archivelog backup and may not be useful.
LV=A means archivelog backup.
RMAN> list backup summary; List of Backups =============== Key TY LV S Device Type Completion Time #Pieces #Copies Compressed Tag ------- -- -- - ----------- -------------------- ------- ------- ---------- --- 69 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-19 13:29:02 1 1 NO ARCH 70 B A A DISK 2020-FEB-19 13:29:03 1 1 NO ARCH 71 B F A DISK 2020-FEB-19 13:29:04 1 1 NO TAG20200219T132904 RMAN>
In writing this post, I realized the my own backup script will need some improvements.
Broad Coalition Files Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Oracle
Redwood Shores, Calif.—Feb 19, 2020
A wide array of individuals and organizations from across technology, arts and culture, government, advocacy, and academia filed amicus briefs this week supporting Oracle in the Supreme Court. This diverse group is speaking out to defend copyright protection and to reject Google’s attempts to excuse its theft of more than 11,000 lines of Oracle’s original code.
Commenting on the briefs, Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley said: “Google is attempting to rewrite the fundamental copyright protections that fuel innovation in this country. The amicus briefs make clear that to avoid significant consequences well beyond the software industry, Google’s self-serving arguments and attempts to rewrite long-settled law must be rejected.”
The fallacies in Google’s arguments, as well as additional context about the case are set forth in Executive Vice President Ken Glueck’s recent blog posts about the importance of copyright protection and the absence of support for Google’s position in the technology community.
Excerpts from the amicus briefs filed today upend Google’s claim that upholding the current ruling and existing law will crush innovation in the software industry. As the briefs demonstrate, that stance is not just inaccurate – the reverse is true.
“Google wields a variety of weaponized copyright exceptions on top of rhetoric that is both deceptively public-spirited (letting Google win is “promoting innovation”) and ominous (impeding Google would “break the internet”). Google further seeks to justify these exceptions by trying to hide behind small players. It engages in astroturfing tactics to give the impression that it has more public support than it does.” (Songwriters Guild of America, pp. 16-17) (unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added)
“[W]hat is good for Google is not synonymous with what is good for the public. […] In fact, a ruling for Google would be “promoting” software innovation only in that the purported “innovation” would be furthering Google’s private interest—i.e., using works without permission or a license fee.” (Songwriters Guild of America, p. 32)
“No reasonable person would invest resources in creating an original work if another person could lawfully extract material portions of that work and incorporate them into a marketplace replacement.” (Internet Accountability Project, p. 4)
Oracle’s code was undoubtedly creative and copyright protected.
“Google has appointed itself the world’s ‘organize[r]’ of other people’s information…and in this case it copied verbatim substantial amounts of Oracle’s software to do so.” (Internet Accountability Project, p. 1)
“[M]ore than enough creative choices were made by [Oracle’s programmers] in creating the 7,000 lines of declaring code…to satisfy the copyright requirements.” (Interdisciplinary Research Team on Programmer Creativity, p. 19)
“[I]t is clear that there were thousands of different ways [that Oracle’s] APIs could have been written when they were created . . . [and] that they are protected from copying by the Copyright Act.” (Interdisciplinary Research Team on Programmer Creativity, pp. 19-20)
Google could have licensed Oracle’s software but chose to copy it instead.
“The inconvenience of not copying does not excuse copying.” (American Conservative Union, p. 14)
“Google and its amici seek to establish a rule of general applicability in the software industry that will justify future unauthorized copying whenever it saves the copier time and money.” (American Conservative Union, p. 18)
“Google asserts [that its] choice to copy proves that Google had no choice other than to copy. Yet Google’s assertion that it “reused” the declarations “only because it had no other choice,” finds no support in the record. The obvious other choice was licensing.” (American Conservative Union, p. 12)
“Through YouTube, Google profits directly from verbatim copies of Amici’s own works. These copies are often unauthorized, unlicensed, and severely undermonetized.” (Songwriters Guild of America, p. 26)
The argument that Google’s use was protected by exceptions to the copyright laws falls flat.
“This brazen commercial use in competition with [Oracle] and the indisputable harm to the market doom [Google’s] fair use claim.” (Copyright Thought Leaders, p. 21)
“Google’s verbatim copying of Oracle’s code for use in the Android platform had a measurable negative impact on Oracle’s bottom line. Under existing law…such use of another’s work is categorically not ‘fair.’” (Internet Accountability Project, p. 3)
“[Google] has done nothing that qualifies as transformative. [Google] engaged in verbatim copying to use the copied code in commercial competition with others who either licensed the works or avoided infringement by applying their own creativity to write different code to perform those functions.” (Copyright Thought Leaders, p. 20)
“Google and many of its amici seek to upend [the] well-ordered system of private property rights in software through either an unworkably complex, nearly metaphysical, interpretation of copyrightability of software, or a broad “fair use” exemption, both based on some conjured up “special status” as players in the software industry.” (American Conservative Union, p. 4)
This case threatens copyright protection across the board.
“Copyright is, in fact, of existential importance to…creators, who would be utterly lacking in market power and the ability to earn their livings without it.” (Songwriters Guild of America, p. 3)
“It is not empty rhetoric to say that without the statutory and constitutional protections of copyright, professional creators could not earn their livings and simply would not produce new works, and the world would be poorer for it. The reason is simple but profound: copyright protection allows for a vibrant creative environment in which artists can predictably recover the gains of their creative labors.” (Songwriters Guild of America, p. 5)
The Oracle Cloud offers a complete suite of integrated applications for Sales, Service, Marketing, Human Resources, Finance, Supply Chain and Manufacturing, plus Highly Automated and Secure Generation 2 Infrastructure featuring the Oracle Autonomous Database. For more information about Oracle (NYSE: ORCL), please visit us at www.oracle.com.
TrademarksOracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
Oracle Cloud Applications Achieves FedRAMP Moderate Authorization
Redwood Shores, Calif.—Feb 19, 2020
Oracle today announced that Oracle Cloud Applications has achieved FedRAMP Moderate Authorization. FedRAMP is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. With this new authorization, U.S. Federal Government customers can benefit from Oracle’s complete and integrated suite of cloud applications for finance, human resources, supply chain, and customer experience.
To outpace accelerating change in technology, government agencies need to break down data silos, embrace the latest innovations, and improve digital experiences, collaboration, and service. Built on Oracle’s industry-leading cloud platform and infrastructure, Oracle Cloud Applications enables customers to benefit from best-in-class security, high-end scalability, and performance, in addition to strong integration capabilities.
“FedRAMP Authorization for Oracle Cloud Applications is a critical step in meeting the growing demands and compliance requirements of our public sector customers,” said Tamara Greenspan, group vice president, Oracle Public Sector. “By achieving this authorization, we are able to help the Federal Government tap into our complete and innovative cloud applications suite to not just keep pace, but stay ahead of the evolving business and technology landscape.”
Oracle has been a long-standing strategic technology partner of the U.S. Federal Government. In fact, a component of the U.S. Intelligence Community was the first customer to use Oracle’s flagship database software 35 years ago. Today, more than 500 government organizations take advantage of the superior performance of Oracle’s industry-leading technologies.
The Oracle Cloud offers a complete suite of integrated applications for Sales, Service, Marketing, Human Resources, Finance, Supply Chain and Manufacturing, plus Highly Automated and Secure Generation 2 Infrastructure featuring the Oracle Autonomous Database. For more information about Oracle (NYSE: ORCL), please visit us at www.oracle.com.
TrademarksOracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
[New Feature] Oracle Cloud Shell in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI)
Cloud shell gives you access to a Linux Shell in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) Console. It can be used to interact with resources and quickly run OCI CLI commands. The cloud shell is now available in all commercial regions. It is free to use and easily accessible from the console. Check Out K21 Academy’s blog […]
The post [New Feature] Oracle Cloud Shell in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) appeared first on Oracle Trainings for Apps & Fusion DBA.
XS$NULL - Can we login to it and does it really have no privileges?
Posted by Pete On 17/02/20 At 01:09 PM
Interval Partition(s)
A quirky little feature of interval partitioning showed up on Twitter today – a parallel insert that would only use a single PX slave to do the inserting. With 1.1 billion rows and the option for running parallel 32 this made the loading process rather slower than it ought to have been.
Fortunately it’s quite easy to model (and work around) the oddity. So here’s a small data set and an empty partitioned table to work with:
rem
rem Script: pt_int_load_anomaly.sql
rem Author: Jonathan Lewis
rem Dated: Jan 2020
rem
create table t1
nologging
as
select
ao.*
from
all_Objects ao,
(select rownum id from dual connect by level <= 20)
;
create table pt1
partition by range (object_id) interval (1000000) (
partition p1 values less than (1)
)
as
select *
from all_Objects
where rownum = 0
/
I’ve created a table by copying all_objects 20 times which, for my little sandbox, has given me a total of about 1.2M rows. Then I’ve created an empty interval-partitioned clone of all_objects, with the first partition defined to hold all rows where the object_id is less than 1 (and there’s no object in the database that could match that criterion). I’ve defined the interval to be 1,000,000 and since the highest object_id in my database is about 90,000 the first partition that gets added to this table will be able to hold all the data from t1.
So now we try to do a parallel insert from t1 into pt1, and check the execution plan and parallel execution statistics:
set serveroutput off insert /*+ append enable_parallel_dml parallel(6) */ into pt1 select * from t1; select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor); start pq_tqstat
Note how I’ve used the hint /*+ enable_parallel_dml */ (possible a 12c hint back-ported to 11.2.0.4) rather than using an “alter session”, it’s just a little convenience to be able to embed the directive in the SQL. The pq_tqstat script is one I published some time ago to report the contents of the session-specific dynamic performance view v$pq_tqstat immediately after running a parallel statement.
Here’s the plan:
SQL_ID 25hub68pf1z1s, child number 0 ------------------------------------- insert /*+ append enable_parallel_dml parallel(6) */ into pt1 select * from t1 Plan hash value: 2888707464 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | TQ |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | INSERT STATEMENT | | | | 631 (100)| | | | | | 1 | PX COORDINATOR | | | | | | | | | | 2 | PX SEND QC (RANDOM) | :TQ10001 | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,01 | P->S | QC (RAND) | | 3 | LOAD AS SELECT (HIGH WATER MARK BROKERED)| PT1 | | | | | Q1,01 | PCWP | | | 4 | OPTIMIZER STATISTICS GATHERING | | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,01 | PCWP | | | 5 | PX RECEIVE | | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,01 | PCWP | | | 6 | PX SEND RANDOM LOCAL | :TQ10000 | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,00 | P->P | RANDOM LOCA| | 7 | PX BLOCK ITERATOR | | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,00 | PCWC | | |* 8 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | T1 | 1235K| 159M| 631 (10)| 00:00:01 | Q1,00 | PCWP | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predicate Information (identified by operation id): --------------------------------------------------- 8 - access(:Z>=:Z AND :Z<=:Z) Note ----- - Degree of Parallelism is 6 because of hint
The most important detail of this plan is that the PX slaves do the load as select (operation 3), then send a message to the query coordinator (PX send QC, operation 2) to tell it about the data load. They do not send their data to the QC for the QC to do the load.
So the plan says we will be doing parallel DM, but here’s what v$pq_tqstat tells us:
DFO_NUMBER TQ_ID SERVER_TYPE INSTANCE PROCESS NUM_ROWS BYTES ROW_SHARE DATA_SHARE WAITS TIMEOUTS AVG_LATENCY
---------- ---------- --------------- -------- --------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
1 0 Producer 1 P006 215880 34785363 17.47 16.86 16 0 0
1 P007 202561 34436325 16.39 16.69 17 0 0
1 P008 207519 34564496 16.79 16.75 17 0 0
1 P009 208408 34594770 16.86 16.77 17 0 0
1 P00A 198915 33529627 16.10 16.25 16 0 0
1 P00B 202537 34430603 16.39 16.69 16 0 0
Consumer 1 P000 0 144 0.00 0.00 51 47 0
1 P001 0 144 0.00 0.00 51 47 0
1 P002 1235820 206340464 100.00 100.00 75 47 0
1 P003 0 144 0.00 0.00 51 47 0
1 P004 0 144 0.00 0.00 1138 1134 0
1 P005 0 144 0.00 0.00 1137 1133 0
1 Producer 1 P000 0 24 0.00 5.91 51 42 0
1 P001 0 24 0.00 5.91 50 41 0
1 P002 2 286 100.00 70.44 58 14 0
1 P003 0 24 0.00 5.91 51 43 0
1 P004 0 24 0.00 5.91 51 42 0
1 P005 0 24 0.00 5.91 51 43 0
Consumer 1 QC 2 406 100.00 100.00 311 179 0
19 rows selected.
The query did run parallel 6 as hinted – and 6 PX slaves scanned the t1 table; but they all sent all their data to one PX slave in the second slave set and that one PX slave did all the inserts. The plan was parallel, but the execution was effectively serial. (You’ll note there is something a little odd about the waits and timeout for p004 and p005 when they are acting as consumers. I may worry about that later, but it could be a host-based side effect of running parallel 6 on a VM with 4 CPUs).
The serialization leads to two questions
- What went wrong?
- How do we work around this and make the insert “truly” parallel
My answer to (1) is “I don’t know – but I’ll look at it if necessary” combined with the guess – it’s something to do with the table having only one partition at the outset and this has an unexpected side effect on the randomising function for the PX distribution.
My answer to (2) is “if I’m right about (1), why not try pre-defining two partitions, and I’ll even let both of them stay empty”.
So here’s my new definition for pt1:
create table pt1
partition by range (object_id) interval (1000000) (
partition p0 values less than (0),
partition p1 values less than (1)
)
as
select *
from all_Objects
where rownum = 0
/
Re-running the test with the completely redundant, and permanently empty p0 partition the plan doesn’t change but the results from v$pq_tqstat change dramatically:
DFO_NUMBER TQ_ID SERVER_TYPE INSTANCE PROCESS NUM_ROWS BYTES ROW_SHARE DATA_SHARE WAITS TIMEOUTS AVG_LATENCY
---------- ---------- --------------- -------- --------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
1 0 Producer 1 P006 207897 34581153 16.82 16.76 23 4 0
1 P007 215669 34786429 17.45 16.86 30 5 0
1 P008 221474 36749626 17.92 17.81 28 5 0
1 P009 204959 34497164 16.58 16.72 22 2 0
1 P00A 177755 30141002 14.38 14.61 21 0 0
1 P00B 208066 35585810 16.84 17.25 25 2 0
Consumer 1 P000 213129 35612973 17.25 17.26 82 57 0
1 P001 200516 33570586 16.23 16.27 84 55 0
1 P002 203395 33950449 16.46 16.45 83 56 0
1 P003 205458 34235575 16.63 16.59 82 54 0
1 P004 204111 33999932 16.52 16.48 581 555 0
1 P005 209211 34971669 16.93 16.95 580 553 0
1 Producer 1 P000 2 286 16.67 16.67 422 149 0
1 P001 2 286 16.67 16.67 398 130 0
1 P002 2 286 16.67 16.67 405 128 0
1 P003 2 286 16.67 16.67 437 161 0
1 P004 2 286 16.67 16.67 406 116 0
1 P005 2 286 16.67 16.67 440 148 0
Consumer 1 QC 12 1716 100.00 100.00 242 111 0
19 rows selected.
Every consumer receives and inserts roughly 200,000 rows – it’s a totally fair parallel DML. Timings are pretty irrelevant for such a small data set but the excution time did drop from 7 seconds to 4 seconds when parallelism was working “properly”.
I’ve tested this script on 12.2.0.1 and 19.3.0.0 – the same anomaly appears in both versions though it might be worth noting that the strange skew in the waits and timeouts doesn’t appear in 19.3.0.0.
How to fetch part of a string for LONG datatype
Finding when someone dropped an object
Scheduling Compilation or Execution of Stored Procedures
Sqoop ojdbc8.jar throws error ORA-06502:PL/SQL:: numeric or value error
Oracle 19C database issue with table types and pipelining
Synchronous refresh in mview ORA-31922: Foreign key must contain partition key in table
When Less Is Best
The expense of a new iPad, even a Mini, made me step back and reconsider my approach. I started by considering my uses of the iPad. I don't really create much with an iPad - it's just too limited for the type of work I do. And I don't communicate much with it, as I have an iPhone for calls, txt, and video chats. I use my iPad to consume: books, movies, social media and news.
Once I understood my own use cases for the iPad, I realized I could fill my needs with a much less expensive device. I settled on an Amazon Fire HD 8 (thanks to my kids for the nifty Christmas present). And it works great for what I do, especially after setting it up to side load from Google Play. My old Mini has been retired to a life as a digital photo frame and I'm really happy with the Fire. Is the Fire as elegant of an experience as the Mini? Not by a long shot. But it gets the job done quite well. And, at last check, the Fire is about 20% of the price of a new iPad Mini. A great example of less being best.
I see this quite a bit in the way users work with enterprise applications - in my specific case, observations are from helping customers with Oracle HCM Cloud Enterprise Applications. Users expend significant costs in terms of time and labor facilitating some very complicated use cases, many of which are either unnecessary or rarely encountered. When we collaborate with those customers on those use cases, the end result is often that less is best. Often they're focused on a specific use case because they have not considered another process for getting the job done. Other times it's a matter of the use case not being as critical to the business as originally thought. And sometimes it's due to a legal or industry requirement that no longer exists. And there are many more causes. But it always makes my day when the lightbulb comes on and people realize they can make do quite well with much less than they originally thought.
I've seen this surface frequently in working with customers on the mobile-enabled Responsive UX. Simplification was a driving design concept in building out Responsive UX, which means some less used and less important features were culled from the product. Less is best, based on the feedback we've received from customers who have adopted the new UX.
So the upshot here? Step back, take a breath, and think about how you use your enterprise apps. Can you find instances where less would be best? I'll bet you find more than one.
Pages
