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

The post says Solaris not HP.

-----Original Message-----
From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of dgoulet_at_vicr.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:28 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re:RE: Is this a well known ORACLE bug? Max uptime < 1 year

For the most part, I've not been too interested in this thread, But for some weird reason this morning I read it and have to disagree. According to what is
written here we should see problems after 16.3 months of uptime on the system
(I'm on HP). Well if this is the case, how come one of my systems that was up
for 2 full years prior to Y2K did not have a single problem??? We had Oracle
7.2 running on there. Something here does not wash.

Dick Goulet

BTW: That was an OLD HP9000/847 running HP-UX 9.02. Thankfully it retired on 1
Dec 1999 and we just let it run through 1 Jan 2000 to see what would happen. Result: NOTHING, stayed up running just fine. (OS & Oracle) What a NON event.

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Author: "MacGregor; Ian A." <ian_at_SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
Date:       8/25/00 3:14 PM

Woah! I thought this was an Oracle 8 bug, are you now dragging Oracle 7 into the picture?

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:50 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Hi,

  This is what I found out. The problem is with all versions of Oracle on Solaris 2.6. ( Fixed in 8.1.7 ) 64bit versions of Solaris ( 2.7 and above ) should not have this problem. Anyway this problem has only been reported on 2.6 and the patch is only available for that platform and version.

  Oracle uses the times system call and it returns a long ( structure clock_t ). On 32bit Solaris the maximum value can only be 2^31 but on 64bit Solaris it can be 2^63. I also checked on HP and it returns an unsigned integer ( both 32 and 64 bit ) and this problem should occur only after 497 days of uptime.

Regards,
Denny

"Adams, Matthew (GEA, 088130)" wrote:
>
> 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
Received on Mon Aug 28 2000 - 10:47:53 CDT