ooppss sorry
"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:k7Pi9.36783$g9.105205_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "David Sharples" <david.sharples3_at_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:P5Oi9.1035$566.78874_at_newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > dont forget shutdown transactional which waits for all current
> transactions
> > to be finished, then boots users off - they all prevent further users
from
> > logging on by the way
>
> I quote:
>
> What you've described is a shutdown transactional.
>
> Unquote
> HJR
>
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:2LMi9.36725$g9.105152_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > >
> > > "Steve M" <steve.mcdaniels_at_vuinteractive.com> wrote in message
> > > news:amfvd4$6j6$1_at_spiney.sierra.com...
> > > > My understanding is this:
> > > >
> > > > shutdown <normal> waits for all transactions to complete and all
users
> > to
> > > > log out
> > > >
> > > > shutdown immediate completes all pending transactions, preventing
new
> > > > transactions, then waits for all users to log out
> > > >
> > >
> > > No. Shutdown immediate boots all users off without warning. It then
> spends
> > > time rolling their transactions back, and issues a final checkpoint.
> Then
> > it
> > > closes the database gracefully. What you've described is a shutdown
> > > transactional.
> > >
> > > > shutdown abort stops immediately, pending transactions are rolled
back
> > > > during the next normal startup.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > In fact, the only functional difference between an immediate and an
> abort
> > is
> > > that the shutdown immediate does the rollback at shutdown time; the
> abort
> > > has to wait until the next startup. Otherwise, the two are identical
in
> > > effect: anything that was pending at the time the shutdown command was
> > > issued is lost, but anything that was committed is safe.
> > >
> > > The only concern with a shutdown abort is that there is a time delay
> > between
> > > the close command and the eventual rollback (ie, when you finally get
> > round
> > > to issuing a new startup command). During that time, it is possible
that
> > > daft things could happen to your online redo logs (which are needed
for
> > the
> > > subsequent instance recovery). Were some online redo to go missing,
> you're
> > > forced to do an incomplete recovery, which means committed data would
> > indeed
> > > be lost.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I am correct, there is a likelihood of a USER thinking that a
> > > transaction
> > > > completed when indeed it was rolled back.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Shouldn't be, actually. The rule in Oracle is that you're
transaction's
> > not
> > > committed until you see the 'Commit Processed' message -at which
point,
> > it's
> > > as safe as houses, whatever sort of shutdown you do (barring the
mishap
> > with
> > > the online redo in a shutdown abort scenario). Users shouldn't "think"
> > their
> > > transaction's completed until they see that message -at which point,
it
> > > *has* been completed.
> > >
> > > > We use shutdown abort all the time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And that's fine, with the one caveat I mentioned. Assuming you've
> > > multiplexed and mirrored you're redo, it's most unlikely that you'd
ever
> > be
> > > in the "I've lost my online redo after an abort" scenario.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > HJR
> > >
> > >
> > > > Killing sessions is (IMHO) misuse.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Karen Abgarian" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3D8AB59A.441AF1D2_at_ureach.com...
> > > > > I wonder why nobody has responded with an opinion on WHY does
oracle
> > > > > wait, sometimes indefinitely for shudown immediate. Likely this
has
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > with the famous question of when exactly PMON cleans up the
sessions
> > and
> > > > > releases the resources after you issue a KILL SESSION command.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to be very popular to shutdown abort and then startup and
> > > > shutdown
> > > > > normal.
> > > > > Even though this works, this is a misuse and it is natural to seek
a
> > > more
> > > > > graceful solution.
> > > > >
> > > > > The contraindications of killing the sessions in a script are many
> but
> > > > have
> > > > > a common root:
> > > > > they are difficult to implement properly. A few years ago I wrote
> > such
> > > a
> > > > > script, it was
> > > > > several dozens lines of code. I am not willing to dig it up, but
I
> > can
> > > > > certify that it is possible.
> > > > > The advantage is that you can do shutdown immediate or even normal
> > > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > shutdown abort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regs
> > > > > AK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kenneth, Koenraadt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:51:46 +0200, cris <veronesic_at_libero.it>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 1. issue shutdown ABORT then immediately startup and shutdown
> > > normal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I was thinking about adding to my script a line that kills all
> the
> > > > > > >active oracle<sid> processes immediatly before to do the
> shutdown.
> > Is
> > > > > > >this a safe way to proceed or are there contraindications?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Safe : NO!!
> > > > > > Contraindications : Dozens!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do as Niall says. "Shutdown abort" will kill those processes in
a
> > safe
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Kenneth Koenraadt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thank you.
> > > > > > >Kind regards, Cristian
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sat Sep 21 2002 - 06:08:11 CDT
