RE: Data Guard question
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:21:19 -0600
Not unexpectedly, it ended up be a combination of a few things:
- Not enough standby redo logs - recommended value is one more than the number of redo logs
- Missing standby redo logs on the standby database - I expected RMAN to create/recreate the SRLs I had created in the primary but the files themselves were missing.
- Incompatible settings between the DGMGRL configuration and the database - specifically LogXptMode
Many thanks to Bradd, Finn, and Jason for the help and pointers.
Now on to the failover attempt! :-)
From: Bradd Piontek [mailto:piontekdd_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 7:16 PM
To: Sweetser, Joe
Subject: Re: Data Guard question
It looks to me like you might have changed a log_archive_dest_n parameter via 'alter system' rather than via the dataguard broker. Compare a 'show parameter' from sqlplus to a dgmgrl>show database verbose (although you may have to go a bit more detailed). When using the broker. there are certain parameters related to dataguard that should be managed from the broker itself, and not changed outside of it.
"Next to doing a good job yourself,
the greatest joy is in having someone else do a first-class job under your direction."
- William Feather
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Sweetser, Joe <JSweetser_at_icat.com> wrote:
Oracle 10.2.0.2 RH Linux AS4 No ASM I just started playing around with Data Guard for the first time this week. For reasons I won't go into that MAY be related to age, I am using DGMGRL instead of OEM to manage the broker. The primary is called daffy and the physical standby is called daffysby. It seems OK in that I can see transactions get applied to daffysby but DGMGRL gives me a warning. It has to do with missing standby redo logs (SRLs) on the primary. I have SRLs in both the primary and the standby. The High Availability Best Practice guide alludes to putting SRLs in the flash recovery area (which I have not done at this point) but I am not convinced that is the issue. I've searched Metalink and the web for "missing SRLs" with not a whole lot of luck. All the redo logs are the same size. My question is does anyone know to get rid of this warning? Can it be safely ignored? I would think not. Any/all pointers/links/advice welcome. This is a test environment so I can try anything. Thanks, -joev$logfile;
(hope this formats ok)
DGMGRL> show database verbose daffy; Database Name: daffy Role: PRIMARY Enabled: YES Intended State: ONLINE Instance(s): daffy <snip> Current status for "daffy": Warning: ORA-16801: redo transport-related property is inconsistent with database setting DGMGRL> show database daffy 'InconsistentLogXptProps'; INCONSISTENT LOG TRANSPORT PROPERTIES INSTANCE_NAME STANDBY_NAME PROPERTY_NAME MEMORY_VALUE BROKER_VALUE daffy daffysby LogXptMode
(missing SRLs) ASYNC
DGMGRL> ***************** SQL> select instance_name from v$instance; INSTANCE_NAME ------------------------------------------------ daffy SQL> select group# ||' - '|| type ||' - '|| member from
1 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo01.log 2 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo02.log 3 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo03.log 4 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo04.log 5 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo05.log 6 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo06.log 6 rows selected. SQL> Confidentiality Note: This message contains information that maybe confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, copy, disclose, distribute or take any action based on this message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message. Although ICAT Holdings, LLC, Underwriters at Lloyd's, Syndicate 4242, scans e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses. Thank you. Received on Mon Oct 13 2008 - 09:21:19 CDT