Re: shutdown immediate hangs

"David Sharples" <david.sharples3_at_ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:P5Oi9.1035$566.78874_at_newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> dont forget shutdown transactional which waits for all current
transactions
> to be finished, then boots users off - they all prevent further users from
> logging on by the way

I quote:

What you've described is a shutdown transactional.

Unquote
HJR
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2LMi9.36725$g9.105152_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > "Steve M" <steve.mcdaniels_at_vuinteractive.com> wrote in message
> > news:amfvd4$6j6$1_at_spiney.sierra.com...
> > > My understanding is this:
> > >
> > > shutdown <normal> waits for all transactions to complete and all users
> to
> > > log out
> > >
> > > shutdown immediate completes all pending transactions, preventing new
> > > transactions, then waits for all users to log out
> > >
> >
> > No. Shutdown immediate boots all users off without warning. It then
spends
> > time rolling their transactions back, and issues a final checkpoint.
Then
> it
> > closes the database gracefully. What you've described is a shutdown
> > transactional.
> >
> > > shutdown abort stops immediately, pending transactions are rolled back
> > > during the next normal startup.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > In fact, the only functional difference between an immediate and an
abort
> is
> > that the shutdown immediate does the rollback at shutdown time; the
abort
> > has to wait until the next startup. Otherwise, the two are identical in
> > effect: anything that was pending at the time the shutdown command was
> > issued is lost, but anything that was committed is safe.
> >
> > The only concern with a shutdown abort is that there is a time delay
> between
> > the close command and the eventual rollback (ie, when you finally get
> round
> > to issuing a new startup command). During that time, it is possible that
> > daft things could happen to your online redo logs (which are needed for
> the
> > subsequent instance recovery). Were some online redo to go missing,
you're
> > forced to do an incomplete recovery, which means committed data would
> indeed
> > be lost.
> >
> > >
> > > If I am correct, there is a likelihood of a USER thinking that a
> > transaction
> > > completed when indeed it was rolled back.
> > >
> >
> > Shouldn't be, actually. The rule in Oracle is that you're transaction's
> not
> > committed until you see the 'Commit Processed' message -at which point,
> it's
> > as safe as houses, whatever sort of shutdown you do (barring the mishap
> with
> > the online redo in a shutdown abort scenario). Users shouldn't "think"
> their
> > transaction's completed until they see that message -at which point, it
> > *has* been completed.
> >
> > > We use shutdown abort all the time.
> > >
> >
> > And that's fine, with the one caveat I mentioned. Assuming you've
> > multiplexed and mirrored you're redo, it's most unlikely that you'd ever
> be
> > in the "I've lost my online redo after an abort" scenario.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> >
> >
> > > Killing sessions is (IMHO) misuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Karen Abgarian" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3D8AB59A.441AF1D2_at_ureach.com...
> > > > I wonder why nobody has responded with an opinion on WHY does oracle
> > > > wait, sometimes indefinitely for shudown immediate. Likely this has
> to
> > do
> > > > with the famous question of when exactly PMON cleans up the sessions
> and
> > > > releases the resources after you issue a KILL SESSION command.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to be very popular to shutdown abort and then startup and
> > > shutdown
> > > > normal.
> > > > Even though this works, this is a misuse and it is natural to seek a
> > more
> > > > graceful solution.
> > > >
> > > > The contraindications of killing the sessions in a script are many
but
> > > have
> > > > a common root:
> > > > they are difficult to implement properly. A few years ago I wrote
> such
> > a
> > > > script, it was
> > > > several dozens lines of code. I am not willing to dig it up, but I
> can
> > > > certify that it is possible.
> > > > The advantage is that you can do shutdown immediate or even normal
> > > instead
> > > > of
> > > > shutdown abort.
> > > >
> > > > Regs
> > > > AK
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kenneth, Koenraadt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:51:46 +0200, cris <veronesic_at_libero.it>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 1. issue shutdown ABORT then immediately startup and shutdown
> > normal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I was thinking about adding to my script a line that kills all
the
> > > > > >active oracle<sid> processes immediatly before to do the
shutdown.
> Is
> > > > > >this a safe way to proceed or are there contraindications?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Safe : NO!!
> > > > > Contraindications : Dozens!
> > > > >
> > > > > Do as Niall says. "Shutdown abort" will kill those processes in a
> safe
> > > > > way.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Kenneth Koenraadt
> > > > >
> > > > > >Thank you.
> > > > > >Kind regards, Cristian
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

>
> Received on Fri Sep 20 2002 - 19:41:28 CDT