RE: Data Guard question

  • From: "Sweetser, Joe" <JSweetser@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Bradd Piontek" <piontekdd@xxxxxxxxx>, <finn.oracledba@xxxxxxxxx>, <jason.arneil@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:21:19 -0600

Not unexpectedly, it ended up be a combination of a few things:
1.  Not enough standby redo logs - recommended value is one more than
the number of redo logs
2.  Missing standby redo logs on the standby database - I expected RMAN
to create/recreate the SRLs I had created in the primary but the files
themselves were missing.
3.  Incompatible settings between the DGMGRL configuration and the
database - specifically LogXptMode
Many thanks to Bradd, Finn, and Jason for the help and pointers.
Now on to the failover attempt!  :-)


From: Bradd Piontek [mailto:piontekdd@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 7:16 PM
To: Sweetser, Joe
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: Re: Data Guard question

It looks to me like you might have changed a log_archive_dest_n
parameter via 'alter system' rather than via the dataguard broker.
Compare a 'show parameter' from sqlplus to a dgmgrl>show database
verbose  (although you may have to go a bit more detailed). When using
the broker. there are certain parameters related to dataguard that
should be managed from the broker itself, and not changed outside of it.

Bradd Piontek
  "Next to doing a good job yourself, 
        the greatest joy is in having someone 
        else do a first-class job under your  
 -- William Feather

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Sweetser, Joe <JSweetser@xxxxxxxx>

        RH Linux AS4
        No ASM
        I just started playing around with Data Guard for the first time
        week.  For reasons I won't go into that MAY be related to age, I
        using DGMGRL instead of OEM to manage the broker.  The primary
is called
        daffy and the physical standby is called daffysby.  It seems OK
in that
        I can see transactions get applied to daffysby but DGMGRL gives
me a
        warning.  It has to do with missing standby redo logs (SRLs) on
        primary.  I have SRLs in both the primary and the standby.  The
        Availability Best Practice guide alludes to putting SRLs in the
        recovery area (which I have not done at this point) but I am not
        convinced that is the issue.  I've searched Metalink and the web
        "missing SRLs" with not a whole lot of luck.  All the redo logs
are the
        same size.
        My question is does anyone know to get rid of this warning?  Can
it be
        safely ignored?  I would think not.
        Any/all pointers/links/advice welcome.  This is a test
environment so I
        can try anything.
        (hope this formats ok)
        DGMGRL> show database verbose daffy;
         Name:            daffy
         Role:            PRIMARY
         Enabled:         YES
         Intended State:  ONLINE
        Current status for "daffy":
        Warning: ORA-16801: redo transport-related property is
inconsistent with
        database setting
        DGMGRL> show database daffy 'InconsistentLogXptProps';
                  daffy             daffysby           LogXptMode
        (missing SRLs)                ASYNC
        SQL> select instance_name from v$instance;
        SQL> select group# ||' - '|| type ||' - '|| member from
        1 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo01.log
        2 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo02.log
        3 - ONLINE - /u02/oradata/daffy/redo03.log
        4 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo04.log
        5 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo05.log
        6 - STANDBY - /u02/oradata/daffy/stby_redo06.log
        6 rows selected.
        Confidentiality Note: This message contains information that may
be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you should not use, copy, disclose, distribute or take any
action based on this message. If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply email and delete
this message. Although ICAT Holdings, LLC, Underwriters at Lloyd's,
Syndicate 4242, scans e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not
guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for any
damage sustained as a result of viruses.  Thank you.

Other related posts: