Re: Possible Oracle Bug, Oracle Claims No

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:52:35 -0800, Chuck <ccarson_at_echeeba.com> wrote:

>So, we have absolutely no logs at the OS, Veritas, or Raid conrtoller
>level, we have an error detected in an oracle background process, only
>one datafile was affected even though there are many on that disk group,
>AND we just happen to be running a heavy job on the datafile at the time
>of the error. Oracle claims there was no oracle problem and that there
>was a hardware I/O problem, like a bad block or something. In my 10+
>years of experience I have never seen a raid group produce an I/O due to
>a bad disk block AND not log anything what-so-ever. Solaris is usually
>very very good at logging file system inconsistencies.
>
>Just wanted to get feedback from other impartial DBA's.

It is very easy to set up Solaris without any error logging. In fact that is the default. Your statement 'we have absolutely no logs' is ambiguous and confusing: it might as well mean that the O/S is set up in such a way the error aren't logged at all. You would need to run the Sun explorer utility on the server to exclude you didn't encounter any errors. Also I'm not sure why you are running Veritas Database Edition (which is playing trics to both the O/S *and* Oracle) and aren't running quick i/o. AFAIK the very *purpose* of this software product is to be capable to use quick i/o.
That all said I have the distinct feeling you started finger pointing too early, and I agree with Oracle's analysis. Solaris, when not being set up properly, can be a can of worms. My department is performing remote site administration, and if I would have to state which Unix and which vendor is providing the most trouble, it is Solaris and Sun support. They are *very* quick to withdraw support when you didn't install *ALL* patches.

Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address Received on Tue Mar 11 2003 - 12:32:40 CST