Re: Stragne Recovery problem

Rich

    This is definitely not an expected behavior. Can you please clarify following ?

1. Can you post the exact command sequence that you used ?
2. From your posting, it looks like you did NOT use recover command at all. Is that true ?
3. Do you have autorecovery turned on in SQLPLUS ?
4. Are you using rman to do this recovery ?

Rich Holland [oramail] wrote:
> They're numbers I posted as an example. There were about 250 archived redo
> logs over the two week period. My reasoning was that even if we opened and
> closed the copy of the database on B, once the control files were re-copied
> from A to B two weeks later, the SCN in the control files would be newer
> than that in the data files, so the data files would need recovery. In our
> case, they recovered from the FIRST redo log file (e.g. 8355 in my example),
> and then said the database was consistent, and the log sequence number was
> set immediately to 8401 (I guess based on the current log sequence number of
> the online redo which were copied again with the control files a couple
> weeks after the initial copy...
>
> I was surprised it (1) didn't recover through the ~250 log files and (2)
> considered the database consistent and let us open it, even though it's
> missing the last 2 weeks worth of data.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riyaj Shamsudeen [mailto:rshamsud_at_jcpenney.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:25 AM
> To: oramail_at_guidancetech.com
> Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: Stragne Recovery problem
>
> Rich
>
> When you open a database normally, control file is read and cross
> verified with data file header for consistency validation. If you
> replace the control file with current copy of the control file, then the
> data files will lag behind the control file and media recovery is
> needed. In this case, 8355-8400 must be applied. But, Oracle will apply
> the changes from redo log files,without prompting for any recovery, if
> the log sequence range is sufficiently contained within the redo log
> files themselves.
> You say, it doesn't prompt for recovery and updates the log sequence
> to 8400 from 8355. Are these numbers real log sequence numbers ? or
> examples that you are posting ?
> Is it possible that all the activity within the past two weeks
> contained within the redo log files ? Can you find the log sequence #s
> generated within those two weeks and check how many redo files are in
> the database ? I think, the activity in this database is very low and
> /or redo log files are huge.
>
> Thanks
> Riyaj Shamsudeen
>
>
>
>

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l