Re: duplicated archived redologs in Dataguard.
- From: "Howard Latham" <howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Carel-Jan Engel" <careljan@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:58:41 +0100
I guess its a dataguard Question!
Version 10g
Query at standby
On 04/06/2008, Carel-Jan Engel <careljan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Howard,
>
> First of all, to throw somewhat more light at your unclassifiable question
> ;-) :
> - Version?
> - Query at the primary or the standby?
>
> You did not include the dest_id in the query.
> Do you have 2 local archive destinations?
> Then you will get a row for each seq#
>
> the MRP process will only use one (archived) redo log file.
>
> v$archived_log is not the best example of normalisation.....
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Carel-Jan Engel
>
> ===
> If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
> ===
>
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 10:43 +0100, Howard Latham wrote:
>
> Anyone know why this is happening?
>
>
>
> Query shows duplicate archived logs and therefore it looks
>
> like some havent been applied - when they have really!
>
>
>
> select name,sequence#, first_time,next_time,applied from v$archived_log
> order by sequence#
>
>
>
>
> NAME
> SEQUENCE# FIRST_TIM NEXT_TIME APP
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------- --------- --------- ---
>
> /u04/backup/1_1464_643745266.dbf
> 1464 02-JUN-08 02-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1465 02-JUN-08 02-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_02/o1_mf_1_1465_448yf92c_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1465_643745266.dbf
> 1465 02-JUN-08 02-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1466 02-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_03/o1_mf_1_1466_448yw2ho_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1466_643745266.dbf
> 1466 02-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1467 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_03/o1_mf_1_1467_44b01n4c_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1467_643745266.dbf
> 1467 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1468 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_03/o1_mf_1_1468_44by5q87_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1468_643745266.dbf
> 1468 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1469 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_03/o1_mf_1_1469_44chg018_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1469_643745266.dbf
> 1469 03-JUN-08 03-JUN-08 YES
> /home/oracle/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_2/flash_recovery_area/TRIPLESPROD/archivel
> 1470 03-JUN-08 04-JUN-08 NO
> og/2008_06_03/o1_mf_1_1470_44cm6577_.arc
>
> /u04/backup/1_1470_643745266.dbf
> 1470 03-JUN-08 04-JUN-08 YES
>
> 51 rows selected.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Howard A. Latham
>
> Unclassifiable DBA
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
--
Howard A. Latham
Other related posts:
