Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: trivial pursuit - filesystemio_options

Re: trivial pursuit - filesystemio_options

From: Anurag Varma <avdbi_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:19:19 GMT
Message-ID: <r2%6c.2250$QS2.172@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>

"Ed Stevens" <nospam_at_noway.nohow> wrote in message news:euom501jfnc6fuvjrtdidf4hmnsplgvv1c_at_4ax.com...
> Platform Ora 9.2.0.1 on Solaris 8
>
> While doing some sanity check comparisions between two db's, I
> discovered an oddity, a puzzler, a question, a head-scratcher . .
>
> In the following two queries, the two databases are on the same
> server, under the same Oracle home, and the parameter
> filesystemio_options is *NOT* explicitly set in the init.ora file of
> either database. There is no spfile. So, two db's on the same server,
> under the same Oracle Home, in both cases the parm says it is at
> default value, but the actual value is different. Further, one of
> them has a value that -- from what I read in the docs -- is not a
> valid option for that parm.
>
>
>
> sql> connect system_at_cmdm1240
> Enter password:
> Connected.
> sql> select value, isdefault from v$parameter where name =
> 'filesystemio_options';
>
> VALUE
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> ISDEFAULT
> ---------
> asynch
> TRUE
>
>
> sql>
> sql> connect system_at_cmqm1240
> Enter password:
> Connected.
> sql> select value, isdefault from v$parameter where name =
> 'filesystemio_options';
>
> VALUE
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> ISDEFAULT
> ---------
> asynchrval=99999999
> lo
> TRUE
>
>
> sql>

I remember running into the same exact problem. Oracle Support had no clue how that value could have been set.
But basically they told me to do an alter system set filesystemio_options=asynch; to fix it.

.. and that fixed the value.
I cannot however explain how that value could have been set other than attributing it to some kind of memory corruption.
The wrong value also did not seem to have any adverse affect on the system.

HTH
Anurag Received on Sat Mar 20 2004 - 11:19:19 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US