Re: Shutdown Abort - Not a Good Idea, Right?

Hi Pete,

    For what its worth I found that NT servers often resist anything other than
shutting down abort. In most cases these servers were located in computer rooms and the operations personnel were running terminal sessions from a place other than the console. although all other sessions would be dropped
shutdown Immediate would not kill the computer operator's session. (We had them log in as SYSOPER.)

    regards

Jerry Gitomer

Pete Sharman wrote in message <371DF9CF.332A6FAF_at_us.oracle.com>...
>Mohammed
>
>A shutdown abort is used when you want to kick users off as quickly as
>possible. Say for example, you've just accidentatlly dropped some
>tables. You will want to do an incomplete recovery, so to minimize the
>data loss you do a shutdown abort to stop users entering data. What
>actually happens with the abort is that the instance is shut down (i.e.
>the background processes and the SGA are removed), while the database
>files themselves remain open.
>
>A shutdown immediate is a cleaner approach. It disconnects any connected
>users, rolls back their uncommitted transactions, frees any locks, then
>shuts down both the database and the instance. As a result, the database
>files are not open. It will normally be slower than a shutdown abort
>however.
>
>For completeness, a shutdown normal waits for everyone to log off, then
>closes the database and the instance.
>
>With all that as background, what is the right approach in your
>situation? DBA's used to (and some still do) use the mechanism in your
>script - shutdown abort to kick off users, then startup followed by
>shutdown normal to clean up the database files. The reason? An old
>documentation bug. The Oracle manuals at one stage stated that a shutdown
>immediate (which in effect is doing the same thing as your current three
>step process) would not leave the database in a clean state and that
>recovery would be required on next startup. I believe (someone please
>correct me if you know better) that this documentation bug has been fixed.
>
>The other reason for using the three step process is that sometimes on
>some platforms the shutdown immediate would hang. There doesn't seem to
>be any consistency in the reports I've seen on this newsgroup, but others
>may be able to comment on specific OS's, versions etc.
>
>The short answer to your question is that you should be able to safely
>remove the three step process and replace it with a shutdown immediate.
>
>HTH.
>
>Pete
>
>M. Bhatti wrote:
>
>> I just recently noticed that, before doing cold backups, our db
>> instances (Oracle 7.3.2/8.0.5, Sun Solaris 2.5.1) are shutdown aborted
>> than brought up and shutdown normal, so that the cold backup can be
>> started immediately after the shutdown normal.
>>
>> Question is, I thought shutdown abort should not be used except in
>> extreme conditions ie when a db instance
>> cannot be shutdown normal/immediate.
>>
>> So, I assume that:
>> This is bad idea right (shutdown abort)?
>> What can happen to the db?
>>
>> Thanks for any input.
>>
>> mkb
>
>--
>
>
>Regards
>
>Pete
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Peter Sharman Email: psharman_at_us.oracle.com
>WISE Course Development Manager Phone: +1.650.607.0109 (int'l)
>Worldwide Internal Services Education (650)607 0109 (local)
>San Francisco
>
>SQL> select standard_disclaimer, witty_remark
> 2 from company_requirements;
>
>Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle
>Corporation
>
>"Controlling application developers is like herding cats."
>Kevin Loney, ORACLE DBA Handbook
>"Oh no it's not! It's much harder than that!"
>Bruce Pihlamae, long term ORACLE DBA
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 21 1999 - 13:31:14 CDT