Re: shutdown abort warnings
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:28:43 -0400
It's been a very long time since I saw corruption due to a shutdown abort. Then again, I don't use it very often at all.
The article is a mix of some specifics (like the v$session/v$process queries) and some generalization (like the shutdown/startup procedures) and the generalized text suffers. I wouldn't advertise shutdown aborts as a great way of shutting a db down, but I don't see corruption either. As a matter of fact doesn't products like VCS and MC/ServiceGuard use shutdown abort on controlled failovers to minimize shutdown time?
Here's something orphaned that I did see recently. On a Sun E6900 there were Shared Memory segments owned by Oracle not attached to by anyone. 50GB of them. That's a whole lot of wasted memory. It took us a while to man up enough to use ipcrm to remove them as it was on a production server with several other running oracle instances.
On 4/16/08, Joel.Patterson_at_crowley.com <Joel.Patterson_at_crowley.com> wrote:
> I was reading (and contributed my .02£), to the forum discussion awhile
> ago concerning shutdown abort yet came across this advice and warnings of
> possible corruption still being advertised.
> Does this lend credit to the institution, or take points away? The
> leanings where very much favorable to abort with much in depth analysis.
> If so, one wonders.... (not that I have any intention of utilizing there
> services in the first place... it is simply academic).