I'm not using AUM on my production databases because they're still 8.1.7.
To tell the truth, I haven't seen any major patches for AUM in the 9iR2.
Well, when Oxford goes to 9.2, I guess AUM is an option. I'm still
paranoid about the new features. I believe that progress does bad things
to the
Title: A new form of ORA-1555
A sighting in alert log ...
SMON offlining US=102
SMON offlining US=104
Fri Jun 6 08:42:06 2003
ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query Duration=41895 sec, SCN: 0x0010.c2bd0c24):
Fri Jun 6 08:42:06 2003
SELECT ROUND(G_1/:SYS_B_00) G_1, ROUND(G_2
A classic case when AUM does not help prevent 1555 errors !
Query duration is MAXQUERYLENreported inv$undostat view. SCN could be the 'as of SCN' when the query started (not sure, as I could never get my small tests to failwith 1555 when using AUM).
What is also interesting is the SMON
we ended up with an ORA-600 after lots of 'SMON offlining undo segment
messages in the alert log. Happened only once, Support asked us to set
an event and trap it when/if it happens again
I'm beginning to think maybe I should have stuck with rollback segments
--- Kirtikumar Deshpande [EMAIL
Title: A new form of ORA-1555
It might have something to do with setting the
table to do a Flashback query. Maybe Dan will know.
Ruth
- Original Message -
From:
Jamadagni, Rajendra
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:00
AM
://www.optimaldba.com
Ruth Gramolini wrote:
A new form of ORA-1555
It might have something to do with setting
the table to do a Flashback query. Maybe Dan will know.
Ruth
-
Original Message -
From:
Jamadagni, Rajendra
recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent:
Friday, June 06, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject:
A new form of ORA-1555
A sighting in alert log ...
SMON offlining US=102 SMON offlining US=104 Fri Jun 6 08:42:06 2003 ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query
a
Flashback
query. Maybe Dan will know.
Ruth
- Original Message -
From: Jamadagni, Rajendra mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject: A new form of ORA
Message -
From: Jamadagni, Rajendra mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject: A new form of ORA-1555
A sighting in alert log ...
SMON offlining US=102
Mladen,
That is a common misconception, one that Oracle wholeheartedly supports.
Flashback Query (FBQ) depends upon the smon_scn_time table, which is popluated
in 9i, regardless of the undo_management setting. This table is populated
regardless of the UNDO_RETENTION parameter. This parameter
Well,
I've read a lot of that on this list (this is not the first time FBQ is being
discussed) but as a
conservative and somewhat paranoid DBA, I don't want to
try anything that isn't supported with a
very
new feature like FBQ. The experience taught me a lesson about ora-600 and alike.
I
]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/06/2003 03:20 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: A new form of ORA-1555
Mladen,
That is a common misconception, one that Oracle wholeheartedly
Mladen,
I could not agree more! I seriously pondered not posting this information
at all. FBQ is a nice feature, but I would not depend upon it. I'm a conservative
and somewhat paranoid DBA and I would not recommend AUM for production systems,
though certain very knowledgable and respected
we are using AUM pretty successfully for our production systems.
Interestingly enough the one problem we did have was on a test box, and
we couldn't repeat it
--- Daniel W. Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mladen,
I could not agree more! I seriously pondered not posting this
information at
Oh no, we agree. I wouldn't do automatic undo management, either. V$ROLLSTAT is
perfectly good for me. I'll wait for the version 10 to intorduce AUM to my databases.
On 2003.06.06 21:54 Daniel W. Fink wrote:
Mladen,
I could not agree more! I seriously pondered not posting this
I am using AUM in our Test/Acceptance databases with no problems at all. This month it
will be
rolled out to a couple of production databases.
FBQ is another matter altogether :)
MUM (manual undo mgmt) was a depreacted option when 9i R1 came out. I won't be
surprised if only
AUM would be
16 matches
Mail list logo
