Is it possible for a reporting solution to both ‘look’ sufficiently effective to be purchased by the average IT department and ‘be’ sufficiently effective to accomplish anything of value? This is the real question and it seems sad that solutions may have to either pick one side or the other.
This shows queries that use signifantly greater cycles (and thus are a little suspicious):
select substr(sql_text,1,90),cpu_time from v$sql order by cpu_time;
Contexts of a tiny script that you should never run:
cp $0 $$ # Make a copy of yourself sh $$ & # Run the copy in the background sh $0 & # Rerun a new version of yourself in the background
This will probably take over your server or at least use up all of the filesystem pointers in its filesytem. In a minute or so you would have thousands of these running and doubling each generation.
This does demonstrate an interesting version of ‘the game of life’. If the copy (cp) could be a little less reliable and the whole thing could work in a few messed up ways, this could actually evolve into some other different tiny script.
Self-reference is always fun times.
I have been playing around with some environmental elements of the shell and began mocking up completions for myself by going into a special directory that had sub-directories named what I needed for my TAB completion. It turns out that with bash it is quite a bit easier and cooler than this.
We were stumbling around trying to figure out why NIM wasn’t working when we realized that the issue was with /etc/netsvcs.conf. We needed to set: hosts=local4,bind4
This got unset because we made the mistake of using our admin sandbox as the same machine as our NIM server.
This is the scam.com discussion of a MLM scheme which involves writing down license plate numbers.
To get this cross-partition monitoring to work, make sure you enable monitoring through the HMC at the partition level. Look at Partition Properties/Hardware and check:
This is a great article on open-consulting. I find it similar to articles on open source.