Re: Primary gets ora-16009 when attempting a heartbeat with standby
- From: "Charles Schultz" <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "David Barbour" <david.barbour1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:00:36 -0500
Interesting, Oracle Support shared the same idea this morning. =) No errors
in the alert.log on the standby. We are not using tnsnames.ora (oid ldap
instead), but tnsping shows appropriate responses in all cases. I am not
sure what the listener has to do with it since the tns alias points to the
same service name. But Oracle Support is asking for more information (ie,
listener.log, etc), so we will see if that proves to be helpful or not.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM, David Barbour <david.barbour1@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Any errors in your standby alert log? With your tnsnames.ora file in it's
> original configuration, what does tnsping show you from both the primary
> server and the standby server? I don't think your problem is with the
> shared files. You might want to check your listener.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Charles Schultz <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> *grin* I have provided all that to Oracle Support already. It is a rather
>> bizarre situation. To answer your question about TNS_ADMIN, I have to say
>> "sorta"; we have a central directory in which all Oracle Homes on a host
>> link to. For example, /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0.2/network/adminwould
>> have file pointers to individual files (tnsnames.ora, ldap.ora,
>> sqlnet.ora, etc) in /u01/app/oracle/tnsAdmin. Think that makes a difference
>> in this situation?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Roman Podshivalov <
>> roman.podshivalov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm,
>>>
>>> In this case to research such situation more information is required
>>> about configuration like: init.ora files, tnsnames.ora/sqlnet.ora files and
>>> current dns resolutions from both sides, outputs from v$dataguard_* views
>>> would be handy as well.
>>>
>>> PS: are you using custom TNS_ADMIN location ?
>>>
>>> --romas
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Charles Schultz <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Romas, great question.
>>>>
>>>> Looking back at the sequence of events, it does appear that the DNS
>>>> configuration was such that the primary was trying to ship logs to itself
>>>> for about 5 minutes after the last switchover. However, after that was
>>>> corrected, the configuration ran without a hitch until the standby was
>>>> restarted a few weeks later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles Schultz
>>
>
>
--
Charles Schultz
Other related posts:
