Re: Is this a well known ORACLE bug? Max uptime < 1 y

Hi Dick and List,

  Clarification :

  I had opened a TAR to find the impact of this bug. From the conversion I had with the Analyst, the problem has been reported only for Solaris (32bit). Bug#1084273 is for pre 816 versions and Bug#1227119 is for 816 . Problems include core dumps and and ORA-7445 . ( I could not view the notes for Bug#1084273. This is based on what was read out to me over the phone. ) The analyst would confirm that this problem has been reported on Solaris (32bit) and the patch is available for this platform but would not confirm that this problem does not exist for 64bit Solaris ( or other platforms ). The argument was if a problem is reported, a patch would be released for that. We have databases on HP 32&64bit and Solaris 32&64bit and I had to tried to find the impact on these platforms. I based my conclusions assuming Oracle works the more or less the same way on both platforms. Since Dick had a database on a HP box with uptime of 2 years, I guess I am wrong. Hope this clears the confusion.

Regards,
Denny

dgoulet_at_vicr.com wrote:
>
> Kimberly,
>
> The bottom of Denny's post references "I also checked on HP ...".
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Author: "Kimberly Smith" <kimberly.smith_at_gmd.fujitsu.com>
> Date: 8/28/00 8:54 AM
>
> The post says Solaris not HP.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> dgoulet_at_vicr.com
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:28 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
> For the most part, I've not been too interested in this thread, But for some
> weird reason this morning I read it and have to disagree. According to what
> is
> written here we should see problems after 16.3 months of uptime on the
> system
> (I'm on HP). Well if this is the case, how come one of my systems that was
> up
> for 2 full years prior to Y2K did not have a single problem??? We had
> Oracle
> 7.2 running on there. Something here does not wash.
>
> Dick Goulet
>
> BTW: That was an OLD HP9000/847 running HP-UX 9.02. Thankfully it retired
> on 1
> Dec 1999 and we just let it run through 1 Jan 2000 to see what would happen.
> Result: NOTHING, stayed up running just fine. (OS & Oracle) What a NON
> event.
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Author: "MacGregor; Ian A." <ian_at_SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
> Date: 8/25/00 3:14 PM
>
> Woah! I thought this was an Oracle 8 bug, are you now dragging Oracle 7
> into the picture?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:50 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
> Hi,
>
> This is what I found out. The problem is with all versions of Oracle
> on Solaris 2.6. ( Fixed in 8.1.7 ) 64bit versions of Solaris ( 2.7 and
> above ) should not have this problem. Anyway this problem has only been
> reported on 2.6 and the patch is only available for that platform and
> version.
>
> Oracle uses the times system call and it returns a long ( structure
> clock_t ). On 32bit Solaris the maximum value can only be 2^31 but on
> 64bit Solaris it can be 2^63. I also checked on HP and it returns an
> unsigned integer ( both 32 and 64 bit ) and this problem should occur
> only after 497 days of uptime.
>
> Regards,
> Denny
>
> "Adams, Matthew (GEA, 088130)" wrote:
> >
> > Is this bug specific to Solaris?
> > I ask because on the bug header it list platform as solaris, but
> > it also lists affected platforms as generic.
> >
> > I tried to ask that question on one of the metalink forums, but
> > keep getting an error.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul van Dijken [mailto:paul.vandijken_at_sema.nl]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:48 AM
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> > > Subject: RE: Is this a well
>
> --
> Author: Kimberly Smith
> INET: kimberly.smith_at_gmd.fujitsu.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
> --
> Author:
> INET: dgoulet_at_vicr.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

-- 
Denny Koovakattu
http://www.vitalsol.com/
http://www.oneco.net/

_________________________________________________________