RE: Is this a well known ORACLE bug? Max uptime < 1 year

Is this bug specific to Solaris?
I ask because on the bug header it list platform as solaris, but it also lists affected platforms as generic.

I tried to ask that question on one of the metalink forums, but keep getting an error.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul van Dijken [mailto:paul.vandijken_at_sema.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:48 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Is this a well known ORACLE bug? Max uptime < 1 year
>
>
> From another Oracle list:
>
> >
> > It's a legitimate bug (1084273/1227119) that is Solaris-specific.
> > There is a patch available for it outside of 8.1.7, however. The
> > patch is available on oracle-ftp.oracle.com under
> > /server/outgoing/SUN_SOLARIS2/BUG1227119
> >
> > The analyst said that the patch is for the 32-bit version, and is
> > checking to see if the patch needs to be applied to the 64-bit
> > version as well.
> >
>
> Since most systems have booted on january, 1, 2000, You can
> expect the first
> effects on September 4, 2000 around noon.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 23 August 2000 11:02
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> Dear listers,
>
> From another system we learned that ORACLE 8.0.5
> should not be started if the unix (Sun ?) has
> been running for a very long time.
>
> Instead you should boot the unix first.
>
> uptime is the magic command giving you the
> number of days since the last boot.
>
> I tried to figure out what goes wrong and
> my theory is this: Unix keeps and ORACLE gets
> the value of uptime as 1/100 of a second.
> Max (signed int) = 2^31 corresponds to 248,55
> days (as 1/100 seconds). Then unsigned int
> is interpreted by ORACLE as negative =>
>
> 2698: sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, 0xEFFFE420, 0x00000000) = 0
> 2698: setcontext(0xEFFFE4F0)
> 2690: semop(524288, 0xEFFFE808, 1) (sleeping...)
> 2694: Received signal #14, SIGALRM, in semop() [caught]
> 2694: semop(524288, 0xEFFFE808, 1)
> Err#91 ERESTART
> 2694: sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, 0xEFFFE420, 0x00000000) = 0
> 2694: times(0xEFFFE3B0) =
> -1944987590
> 2694: setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, 0xEFFFE3B0, 0x00000000) = 0
> 2694: sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, 0xEFFFE420, 0x00000000) = 0
> 2694: setcontext(0xEFFFE4F0)
> 2706: Received signal #14, SIGALRM, in semop() [caught]
> 2706: semop(524288, 0xEFFFE808, 1)
> Err#91 ERESTART
> 2706: sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, 0xEFFFE420, 0x00000000) = 0
> 2706: times(0xEFFFE3B0) =
> -1944987544
>
> We were told that this has been fixed in 8.1.7
> but can that be true ?
>
> Do you know this ? Is this a problem in 8.0.5.2 or
> 8.0.6 or 8.1.6 ?
>
> There is a bell ringing somewhere in the back of my head someone on
> this list wrote something about rebooting at least ones a
> year. Is this
> related?
>
> Best regards / Met vriendelijke groeten / Ystävällisin terveisin
>
> Eric Lansu
>
> --
> Author: Eric Lansu
> INET: eric.lansu_at_quicknet.nl
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
> --
> Author: Paul van Dijken
> INET: paul.vandijken_at_sema.nl
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
Received on Fri Aug 25 2000 - 07:47:46 CDT