Re: New Non-ASM Standby Trying to use ASM during recovery

From: Don Seiler <don_at_seiler.us>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:13:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHJZqBBpUDs8umSibj=Gpi=L3qrOP5ER88oiRxA04Xmt9W5tHA_at_mail.gmail.com>

Yes they are both set, as are the %create_file_dest parameters and the db_recovery_file_dest, all to non-ASM directories. Querying v$logfile, v$tempfile and v$datafile only show non-ASM files.

For what its worth, I tried to remove the diskgroup dependencies from the srvctl configuration for the primary, but it didn't change the end result with the standby.

Must be something still in the controlfile pointing to ASM. Just need to ferret them out.

Don.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> This may sound like a dumb question, but are your db_file_name_convert and
> log_file_name convert parameters set? When I did this, I was allowed a
> couple of hours of downtime, and I used the backup as copy command, and
> recover copy methodology to minimize downtime.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Don Seiler <don_at_seiler.us> wrote:
>
>> Oracle 11.2.0.3 on RH6 x86_64.
>> We have a database on ASM. We want to migrate to filesystem storage on
>> same
>> host (Oracle ZFS). Recommended path from Oracle is to create a standby and
>> then do a failover when ready. Simple enough you'd think.
>>
>> Standby has all reference to ASM diskgroups removed, and convert
>> parameters
>> set appropriately. Take a new backup including archivelogs and also a
>> backup standby controlfile. The "duplicate target database for standby"
>> performs the restore phase perfectly fine. When the media recovery phase
>> starts, I see it tries to mount the diskgroup that the primary uses for
>> ASM. However it fails to do so (plenty of errors to alert log), then
>> recovery fails and the instance is left in mount mode. Subsequent attempt
>> to run "recover database" or even "crosscheck archivelog all" run into the
>> same ASM errors.
>>
>> The one odd thing I see is the reference to the srvctl resource name for
>> that diskgroup:
>>
>> Mon Aug 19 10:41:35 2013
>> ERROR: failed to establish dependency between database prod_zfs and
>> diskgroup resource ora.FRA.dg
>>
>> However I never registered prod_zfs in srvctl, and it still isn't listed
>> when I run "srvctl config database". Obviously the prod configuration has
>> the dependency on +FRA, and it is on the same machine. Is srvctl confusing
>> the two? Perhaps due to same DBID (as is necessary with primary/standby)?
>>
>> Wondering if any of you have seen this.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don Seiler
>> http://www.seiler.us
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
>
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>

-- 
Don Seiler
http://www.seiler.us


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Mon Aug 19 2013 - 18:13:01 CEST