Re: suspicious standard Oracle Linux start/stop script

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<3ed91f36$0$966$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com>...
> How many of these refer to instance recovery rather than media recovery?
>

Does it make a difference? If you need media recovery, how can you avoid instance recovery? If any of them affect instance recovery, then the simple act of doing a shutdown abort as opposed to shutdown immediate stuffs you. In fact, the one with the plus sign is instance recovery, and is noted mostly by people getting stuffed on their standby databases, which as we all know, are in continuous recovery mode. One could expect many of the standby bugs to show up in recovery.

HJR made it into a red herring by saying I don't know the difference between media and instance recovery. In fact, he made most every reference I made into red herrings like that, rather than answering the objections. I could have specifically answered each "bollocks" with a metalink reference, but Morgan asked me to stop publicly, so I stopped.

There is nothing wrong with scripts doing a shutdown abort followed by a bounce, _as long as there is something in there to notify someone right away if it doesn't work_ and the DBA takes responsibility for any problems. I still maintain it is extremely bad advice to tell newbies that there is nothing different between shutdown abort and shutdown immediate. That's just macho posturing to prove you aren't afraid of Oracle's recovery mechanism. Given the O8 track record on recovery, that's like jumping between the tops of two elevators in a shaft.

And now we're going to go through a whole development cycle again for 10i.

> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
> ******************************************
> "Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message
> news:91884734.0305301426.6a17e1e8_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3ed74ffe$0$30223$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3ED66E01.7FF45C70_at_telusplanet.net...
> > > > Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:42:21 +0100, "Niall Litchfield"
> > > > > <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >My advice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >modify the dbshut sql script so it does a shutdown abort. Oracle
> will
> > > > > >recover on startup.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like we need a competition for the most stupid advice offered.
> > > > > There have been quite many the last few days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> > > >
> > > > Sure would be nice if we got some consistency going here ...last week
> I
> > > > got a severe talking to in this list about saying shutdown abort is a
> > > > no-no.
> > >
> > > I hope it wasn't that severe.
> > >
> > > The facts are: if your current redo log is safe (multiplexing, anyone?),
> > > then shutdown abort is no worse than shutdown immediate, which every DBA
> > > seems willing to do at a drop of a hat.
> > >
> > > Anyone going 'Arrrrgggggg' needs to explain why Oracle would be prone to
> > > losing data in the event of a shutdown abort, but not with a shutdown
> > > immediate.
> >
> > They're called bugs and implementation issues, which you of course
> > refuse to admit the existence or importance of, in the face of plenty
> > of metalink evidence. And of course, the "if your current redo log is
> > safe" is a huge Achille's heel.
> >
> > Recovery
> > 9203 2645378+ LOB data corruption after RECOVERY
> > 9203 2388569 Hang possible in parallel transaction recovery
> > 9203 2399093 ORA-16000 opening database READ ONLY
> > 9203 2408817 V$RECOVERY_PROCESS.SOFAR may decrease during media
> > recovery
> > 9203 2424490 OPTIONAL LOG_ARCHIVE_DEST_X failures not written to
> > ALERT LOG
> > 9203 2449124 MAX_FAILURE in LOG_ARCHIVE_DEST_N does not work
> > 9203 2555509 Parallel media recovery slower than needed
> > 9203 2594513 ORA-7445 [kcrradinit] possible during ARCH
> > cross-instance archival
> > 9203 2605511 OERI[3672] changing tablespace READ-WRITE after
> > incomplete recovery
> > 9203 2662180 RECOVER UNTIL SCN may stop before expected SCN if log
> > corrupt
> > 9202 2487487 LGWR may hang writing to >1 archive destinations with
> > NOAFFIRM
> >
> > And those are just the ones found and admitted to and fixed for 9.2.
> >
> > >
> > > But it's precisely this sort of "inconsistency" that persuades me it's a
> > > waste of time posting here. So I won't be doing so in future. If that
> means
> > > you don't feel you've been spoken to severely in future, then I guess
> that's
> > > some kind of bonus.
> >
> > It's a big internet. I'm sure you can refrain from posting
> > anywhere... NOT.
> >
> > It's not a waste to post here if one understands the purpose of usenet
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > >
> > > Cheerio, group: last post!
> >
> > Buh-bye!
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > HJR
> >
> > jg
> > --
> > @home.com is bogus.
> > Jeez, even MS and AOL kissee and make up!
> > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n30aol.html

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.  "...it is best to log a tar for this particular
issue since it involves corruption. If it is determined that you need
the patches, then you can address the installation order at that time.
I would not recommend applying the patches unless it is confirmed that
you are experiencing the bugs. "  -  Oracle support analyst.