Re: TNS-12500: TNS:listener failed to start a dedicated server process
From: <shweta.kaparwan_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fc178a20-b529-4b5c-ab7e-a01ced92a041_at_b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 8, 8:22 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:26 pm, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:34 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 9:29 am, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 1:59 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 8:57 am, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi All
>
> > > > > > We are badly being hit by the following error:
>
> > > > > > 08-JAN-2009 12:43:05 * (connect_data=(server=dedicated)
> > > > > > (service_name=XX)(INSTANCE_ROLE=primary)(failover_mode=(type=session)
> > > > > > (method=basic)(backup=YY)(retries=180)(delay=5))(CID=(PROGRAM=oracle)
> > > > > > (HOST=ZZ)(USER=oracle))(INSTANCE_NAME=AAAA)) * (ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=tcp)
> > > > > > (HOST=<IP>)(PORT=<PORT>)) * establish * BB * 12500
> > > > > > TNS-12500: TNS:listener failed to start a dedicated server process
> > > > > > TNS-12540: TNS:internal limit restriction exceeded
> > > > > > TNS-12560: TNS:protocol adapter error
> > > > > > TNS-00510: Internal limit restriction exceeded
> > > > > > HPUX Error: 11: Resource temporarily unavailable
>
> > > > > > This is repeating at the following interval. ( as a sample.).. It is
> > > > > > intermittent.
>
> > > > > > Start End
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:40:03 08/01/2009 12:40:13
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:41:03 08/01/2009 12:41:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:42:04 08/01/2009 12:42:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:43:04 08/01/2009 12:43:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:43:05 08/01/2009 12:43:05
>
> > > > > > In between above intervals connections are successful
>
> > > > > > We are using "dedicated Server" connection.
>
> > > > > > CPU /Mem utlisation is normal. No change seen in the pattern.
>
> > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > Shweta.
>
> > > > > Hi Shweta,
>
> > > > > How do your OS kernel parameter limits look, i.e. open files, max
> > > > > processes, etc.?
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Hi Steve
>
> > > > We have 05 databases running in Host -A
>
> > > > I have taken below o/p from 1st database. We ra facing this issue in
> > > > all the databases almost at the same time.
>
> > > > SQL>select * from v$resource_limit;
>
> > > > RESOURCE_NAME CURRENT_UTILIZATION MAX_UTILIZATION
> > > > INITIAL_AL LIMIT_VALU
> > > > ------------------------------ ------------------- ---------------
> > > > ---------- ----------
> > > > processes 135
> > > > 256 1000 1000
> > > > sessions 134
> > > > 252 1105 1105
> > > > enqueue_locks 72
> > > > 361 14154 14154
> > > > enqueue_resources 72
> > > > 72 50000 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_procs 133
> > > > 253 1001 1001
> > > > ges_ress 37791
> > > > 50079 90367 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_locks 28140
> > > > 42011 96306 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_cache_ress 5361
> > > > 8522 0 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_reg_msgs 222
> > > > 250 2230 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_big_msgs 17
> > > > 28 2230 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_rsv_msgs 0
> > > > 0 1000 1000
> > > > gcs_resources 72634 81356
> > > > 122432 122432
> > > > gcs_shadows 26643
> > > > 26663 67337 67337
> > > > dml_locks 0
> > > > 36 1024 UNLIMITED
> > > > temporary_table_locks 0 2
> > > > UNLIMITED UNLIMITED
> > > > transactions 14
> > > > 66 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > branches 2
> > > > 28 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > cmtcallbk 4
> > > > 29 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > sort_segment_locks 134 137
> > > > UNLIMITED UNLIMITED
> > > > max_rollback_segments 11
> > > > 11 244 244
> > > > max_shared_servers 1
> > > > 1 20 20
> > > > parallel_max_servers 4
> > > > 121 241 241
>
> > > > 22 rows selected.
>
> > > > Thanks.
>
> > > Hi Shweta,
>
> > > I meant on the OS itself, i.e. HP-UX kernel limits. I have seen
> > > exceptions such as the one you posted when processes, open files, etc.
> > > were approaching/at their maximum limit as allowed/configured by the
> > > system administrator.
>
> > > HTH,
>
> > > Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks Mark and Steve,
>
> > Metalink Document 146859.1 describes the exact problem
>
> > and suggested fix is -
>
> > "The problem can be avoided by raising the value of UNIX kernel
> > parameter:
>
> > maxuprc - max number of processes per user
>
> > Refer to the HP Operating system documentation for detailed steps."
>
> > I need some clarification on this :
>
> > a) Here "max number of processes per user" : does it referring to
> > unix "oracle" user.
> > because each processes are owned /fork by oracle user at operating
> > system level?
>
> > b) Any issues/side effects if we change the maxuprc.
>
> > Regards
>
> As long as the server can handle that many processes, it is just a
> matter of increasing them. AFAIK, this can be done live, so ask your
> HP-UX system administrator to bump them up.
>
> Alos, maybe you have idle connections that could be released (a good
> admin is probably going to ask you that before he/she bumps up the
> number)?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fc178a20-b529-4b5c-ab7e-a01ced92a041_at_b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 8, 8:22 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:26 pm, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:34 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 9:29 am, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 1:59 pm, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 8:57 am, shweta.kapar..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi All
>
> > > > > > We are badly being hit by the following error:
>
> > > > > > 08-JAN-2009 12:43:05 * (connect_data=(server=dedicated)
> > > > > > (service_name=XX)(INSTANCE_ROLE=primary)(failover_mode=(type=session)
> > > > > > (method=basic)(backup=YY)(retries=180)(delay=5))(CID=(PROGRAM=oracle)
> > > > > > (HOST=ZZ)(USER=oracle))(INSTANCE_NAME=AAAA)) * (ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=tcp)
> > > > > > (HOST=<IP>)(PORT=<PORT>)) * establish * BB * 12500
> > > > > > TNS-12500: TNS:listener failed to start a dedicated server process
> > > > > > TNS-12540: TNS:internal limit restriction exceeded
> > > > > > TNS-12560: TNS:protocol adapter error
> > > > > > TNS-00510: Internal limit restriction exceeded
> > > > > > HPUX Error: 11: Resource temporarily unavailable
>
> > > > > > This is repeating at the following interval. ( as a sample.).. It is
> > > > > > intermittent.
>
> > > > > > Start End
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:40:03 08/01/2009 12:40:13
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:41:03 08/01/2009 12:41:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:42:04 08/01/2009 12:42:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:43:04 08/01/2009 12:43:04
> > > > > > 08/01/2009 12:43:05 08/01/2009 12:43:05
>
> > > > > > In between above intervals connections are successful
>
> > > > > > We are using "dedicated Server" connection.
>
> > > > > > CPU /Mem utlisation is normal. No change seen in the pattern.
>
> > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > Shweta.
>
> > > > > Hi Shweta,
>
> > > > > How do your OS kernel parameter limits look, i.e. open files, max
> > > > > processes, etc.?
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Hi Steve
>
> > > > We have 05 databases running in Host -A
>
> > > > I have taken below o/p from 1st database. We ra facing this issue in
> > > > all the databases almost at the same time.
>
> > > > SQL>select * from v$resource_limit;
>
> > > > RESOURCE_NAME CURRENT_UTILIZATION MAX_UTILIZATION
> > > > INITIAL_AL LIMIT_VALU
> > > > ------------------------------ ------------------- ---------------
> > > > ---------- ----------
> > > > processes 135
> > > > 256 1000 1000
> > > > sessions 134
> > > > 252 1105 1105
> > > > enqueue_locks 72
> > > > 361 14154 14154
> > > > enqueue_resources 72
> > > > 72 50000 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_procs 133
> > > > 253 1001 1001
> > > > ges_ress 37791
> > > > 50079 90367 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_locks 28140
> > > > 42011 96306 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_cache_ress 5361
> > > > 8522 0 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_reg_msgs 222
> > > > 250 2230 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_big_msgs 17
> > > > 28 2230 UNLIMITED
> > > > ges_rsv_msgs 0
> > > > 0 1000 1000
> > > > gcs_resources 72634 81356
> > > > 122432 122432
> > > > gcs_shadows 26643
> > > > 26663 67337 67337
> > > > dml_locks 0
> > > > 36 1024 UNLIMITED
> > > > temporary_table_locks 0 2
> > > > UNLIMITED UNLIMITED
> > > > transactions 14
> > > > 66 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > branches 2
> > > > 28 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > cmtcallbk 4
> > > > 29 1215 UNLIMITED
> > > > sort_segment_locks 134 137
> > > > UNLIMITED UNLIMITED
> > > > max_rollback_segments 11
> > > > 11 244 244
> > > > max_shared_servers 1
> > > > 1 20 20
> > > > parallel_max_servers 4
> > > > 121 241 241
>
> > > > 22 rows selected.
>
> > > > Thanks.
>
> > > Hi Shweta,
>
> > > I meant on the OS itself, i.e. HP-UX kernel limits. I have seen
> > > exceptions such as the one you posted when processes, open files, etc.
> > > were approaching/at their maximum limit as allowed/configured by the
> > > system administrator.
>
> > > HTH,
>
> > > Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks Mark and Steve,
>
> > Metalink Document 146859.1 describes the exact problem
>
> > and suggested fix is -
>
> > "The problem can be avoided by raising the value of UNIX kernel
> > parameter:
>
> > maxuprc - max number of processes per user
>
> > Refer to the HP Operating system documentation for detailed steps."
>
> > I need some clarification on this :
>
> > a) Here "max number of processes per user" : does it referring to
> > unix "oracle" user.
> > because each processes are owned /fork by oracle user at operating
> > system level?
>
> > b) Any issues/side effects if we change the maxuprc.
>
> > Regards
>
> As long as the server can handle that many processes, it is just a
> matter of increasing them. AFAIK, this can be done live, so ask your
> HP-UX system administrator to bump them up.
>
> Alos, maybe you have idle connections that could be released (a good
> admin is probably going to ask you that before he/she bumps up the
> number)?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks a lot Steve. Received on Thu Jan 08 2009 - 14:25:57 CST