Exactly what we are setting up at the moment (it gives the added benefit of being a good reason to get 11GR2 into semi-production) One thing we noticed when keeping snapshots 90 days at 15 minute intervals was the growth in SYSAUX tablespace and the opt$stat tables and indices See my blog entry http://jhdba.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/purging-statistics-from-the-sysaux-tablespace/ www.jhdba.wordpress.com ________________________________ From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark W. Farnham Sent: 27 June 2010 17:42 To: dackoc@xxxxxxxxx; mark.teehan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Long term AWR retention Lots of good insights and responses in this thread. But I have a question: Why do so few people copy database metric data to a non-production machine? (And AWR is just a start.) Shouldn't every DBA and/or DBA team have a DBA's data warehouse? Why use production cpu cycles to analyze anything but real time or near real time concerns? Why wonder about year-over-year trends when you can know? Wouldn't improved ability to make a capacity plan based on actual data more than pay for any associated costs? mwf ________________________________ From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carol Dacko Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 5:10 PM To: mark.teehan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Long term AWR retention Mark, We use 6 month retention with 15 minute snapshots. No problems! It has been very helpful to have the history available to us. Carol Dacko University of Michigan On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Teehan, Mark <mark.teehan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mark.teehan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: I am considering increasing AWR retention from the default 7 days to a longer period; possibly 60 days. A longer cycle fits in better with systems that have monthly reporting cycles. Apart from increased space use in sysaux, leading to longer full backup times; I cannot think of any other negative effects. All AWR base tables are range partitioned; and I trust that all queries accessing them are configured to partition prune properly. I cannot find any evidence in MOS or the interwebs that this could be a bad thing to do: has anyone been burned by this before? Thanks! Mark Teehan Singapore ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ============================================================================== ______________________________________________________________________ Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc is registered in England with number 358949. The registered office of the company is situated at Gain Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD3 7DL. This email and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender by replying to the email that you have received in error and then destroy the email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy or rely on the email or its attachments in any way. This email does not constitute a contract in writing for the purposes of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Our Standard Terms and Conditions of Purchase, as may be amended from time to time, apply to any contract that we enter into. The current version of our Standard Terms and Conditions of Purchase is available at: http://www.morrisons.co.uk/gscop Although we have taken steps to ensure the email and its attachments are virus-free, we cannot guarantee this or accept any responsibility, and it is the responsibility of recipients to carry out their own virus checks. ______________________________________________________________________