Re: shutdown immediate hangs

"Karen Abgarian" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message news:3D8C1067.BB75A82B_at_ureach.com...
> >
> > You'll have to explain why doing a shutdown abort is a 'misuse', but
> > knocking up a totally unsupported script that kills off processes in a
> > thoroughly unsupported way is OK.
> >
> > It doesn't compute, captain.
> >
> > HJR
>
> I will try to explain why I think so.
>
> As you know, when an instance starts up after a shutdown abort, it
performs an
> instance recovery. We know that this has always worked but still, it is a
> recovery.
> It could be compared to what Windows is doing on startup when you use your
reset
> button.

No it couldn't, actually. Ah, the perils of the inept ..er, sorry... inapt analogy.

> It is abnormal and I do not like my software to stop and start in an
abnormal
> way.
> By the way, abort/startup/shutdown will not work if you happen to run a
hot
> backup at the time.
> There might be other interesting things related to aborting.

Come off it. There is nothing abnormal about an instance recovery, nor anything particularly nasty, provided your online redo logs are safe. And they ought to be safe whatever sort of shutdown you elect to do.

This nonsense about the eerie shortcomings of shutdown abort really ticks me off. You (and everyone else) should know better.

Unless you can come up with something better than "there might be other interesting things", your "argument" holds no water. As it is, it's little better than voodoo and being scared at shadows.

>
> If you come up with an script that kills sessions, you are also not doing
a nice
> thing,

It wouldn't matter a damn whether you killed off your sessions with a smile or a sinister snigger: "niceness" has nothing to do with it. You're killing sessions. I don't know how your script did it, but if it was by doing lots of "alter system kill session 'x,y'" commands, then you're doing nothing which a shutdown abort doesn't do a whole lot faster (the rollback of what those sessions were in the middle of still has to take place sometime). And if it was by using things like 'kill -9' at the operating system, you're doing totally reprehensible and unsupported things to Oracle.

> but that thing is for the application or in general for processes
accessing your
> database.

So is an Instance recovery. It's sole purpose in life is to help to get your 'processess accessing your database'.

> However, you have the database server shutdown cleanly. I do not think
that the
> word
> "unsupported" is relevant.
>
> Of course, both options are far from perfection. A better way to shutdown
would
> be
> to shutdown your application and any processes accessing your database in
a way
> supported and
> provided by these processes and the application. And then to shutdown
NORMAL.
>

We wouldn't be having this discussion if 'shutdown normal' was a viable proposition for our original poster.

So the fact remains that you don't "like" shutdown aborts for no good reason. Like others, you are peddling the myth that there's something "dodgy" about them when there isn't. And, which is worse, you propose instead to use some other tool which either does the same thing as an abort in a less efficient manner, or does something which is totally unsupported, such as killing off O/S processes.

The real difference between the two approaches is that the shutdown abort uses code which Oracle has written, and your method (whatever it is) uses a script that you've knocked up.

I know which I'd prefer to place trust in.

HJR HJR
>
> Regs
> AK
>
>
Received on Sat Sep 21 2002 - 09:40:00 CDT