1. Online journal management policies include creating groups and members, renaming and moving them, and deleting them.
2. Mirrored journal groups should be used to place members on different drives to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure.
3. The size of online log files should be relatively small to avoid long instance recovery times, and should also consider archiving needs to minimize unused space on offline media.
The article titled "Online Journal Management" provides a brief overview of journal management policies, creating groups and journal members, renaming and moving journal members, deleting groups and journal members, forcing journal switching, setting checkpoint intervals, and retrieving information about online journals. While the article covers some essential aspects of online journal management, it lacks depth in its analysis and fails to provide sufficient evidence for some of its claims.
One potential bias in the article is its focus on Oracle servers. While Oracle is a popular database management system used by many organizations worldwide, the article does not consider other systems that may have different requirements for online journal management. This narrow focus may limit the usefulness of the article for readers who use different systems.
The article also makes unsupported claims about the cost of excess disk space required for mirror groups being insignificant compared to potential data loss. While this may be true in some cases, it is not always the case. The cost of excess disk space can be significant for organizations with limited resources or those managing large amounts of data.
Additionally, the article does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally. For example, while it recommends placing members of an online journal group on different drives to reduce downtime in case of a single disk failure, it does not consider alternative solutions such as using RAID technology or cloud-based storage solutions that can provide similar benefits.
The article also lacks detail on how to determine the correct size of online log files. It only briefly mentions that log files should be relatively small but does not provide any specific guidelines or best practices for determining their size. This lack of detail may leave readers unsure about how to make informed decisions regarding log file sizes.
Furthermore, the article contains promotional content for Oracle products without providing adequate context or alternatives. For example, it recommends using Oracle's default size for online log files without considering whether this size is appropriate for all organizations or systems.
In conclusion, while the article provides some useful information on online journal management, it lacks depth and detail in its analysis. It also contains potential biases, unsupported claims, missing points of consideration, and promotional content that may limit its usefulness for readers.