RE: DataGuard Weirdness
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:19:34 -0000
Thanks for the reply, I think we are experiencing some network issues.
However, the results from the max sequence number selects are identical and the result of the last query is 'VALID'
Like I say, all of the various suggested statements I have tried elsewhere suggest there is no issue, yet, I can physically see that some logs have not been passed to the standby.
From: Antony Raj [mailto:ca_raj_at_yahoo.com]
Sent: 09 February 2012 14:14
To: Robertson Lee - lerobe; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: DataGuard Weirdness
"we are still missing logs which have not been shipped onto the standby from the Primary."
If this statement holds true, then if you run the following statement on the primary and in the standby,you'll see differences in sequence#
select max(sequence#) from v$archived_log;
select max(sequence#) from v$archived_log where archived='YES';
Also check on the primary for archive log shipping error by running the following sql.
select dest_id,status,error from v$archive_dest where dest_id=2; (if you configure log_archive_dest_2 for the standby or use dest_id accordingly)
From: Robertson Lee - lerobe <Lee.Robertson_at_acxiom.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:39 AM Subject: DataGuard Weirdness
Just set up an 11gR2 DG config (one primary/one standby) on Linux and am seeing some strange errors in the standby alert log.....
Every now and again, (its fairly random) the following is happening.
RFS: Selected log 5 for thread 1 sequence 29031 dbid 874073702 branch 764422822
Thu Feb 09 13:02:49 2012
RFS: Selected log 5 for thread 1 sequence 29032 dbid 874073702 branch 764422822
Thu Feb 09 13:02:56 2012
Fetching gap sequence in thread 1, gap sequence 29030-29030
Thu Feb 09 13:03:49 2012
RFS: Selected log 5 for thread 1 sequence 29033 dbid 874073702 branch 764422822
Thu Feb 09 13:04:48 2012
FAL[client]: Failed to request gap sequence
GAP - thread 1 sequence 29030-29030
DBID 874073702 branch 764422822
FAL[client]: All defined FAL servers have been attempted.
Check that the CONTROL_FILE_RECORD_KEEP_TIME initialization
parameter is defined to a value that's sufficiently large
enough to maintain adequate log switch information to resolve
I have googled until I am sick and also been on My Oracle Support . Everything points to a bug (which says has been fixed in 11g) as I have tried all the various select statements from the internal views that have been recommended on various web sites (and MOS) yet they all return no rows which supposedly means all is fine. Despite this we are still missing logs which have not been shipped onto the standby from the Primary.
Any ideas ?
The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Thu Feb 09 2012 - 08:19:34 CST