I've certainly run across cases where the ela= field was just plain wrong,
containing huge numbers and I think back in the early 9.2 days there were
times when the trace file got the timestamp number in the ela field. Don't
recall seeing negative figures though.
On 12/19/06, Paul Drake <bdbafh_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 10g R1 std ed 32 bit (10.1.0.4 with cpuoct2006 applied).
> w2k3 R2 sp1 32 bit
> CPUs: a pair of dual core AMD Opterons
> datafile storage is on a NetApp Filer attached by a pair of non-TOE
> enabled onboard gigabit ethernet adapters using an MS iSCSI driver.
>
> I'm seeing negative values for elapsed time in a 10046 trace file (lots of
> them, actually):
>
> WAIT #27: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 6652 p1=24 p2=52089 p3=1
> WAIT #27: nam='db file sequential read' ela= -365131103 p1=25 p2=58558
> p3=1
> WAIT #27: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 15075 p1=25 p2=58560 p3=1
>
> A quick search of metalink returned only the reference doc
> *Note:39817.1 * *Interpreting Raw SQL_TRACE and DBMS_SUPPORT.START_TRACE
> output*
>
> Has anyone else run across this before?
>
> thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Dec 20 2006 - 01:08:06 CST
