Re: session wait fun
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: orclwzrd@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 19:23:55 +0000
Your wait times sound suspiciously close to time since Unix Epoch. I wonder
if you might have a dead/unreachable timesource somewhere.
On Jan 7, 2014 6:41 PM, "John D Parker" <orclwzrd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8 (Tikanga)
> uname -a says 64 bit.
>
> So since I cast a wide net, how about just the time overflow issue to 44
> years.
>
> I hesitate to run strace on this particular production environment.
>
> john
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* David Fitzjarrell <oratune@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* "orclwzrd@xxxxxxxxx" <orclwzrd@xxxxxxxxx>; oracle-l <
> oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: session wait fun
>
> Dear Frustrated,
>
> What is the release of Linux you are using, and is it 32-bit or 64-bit?
> Does strace on the suspect process show anything unusual? (I do understand
> that strace generates a LOT of output so it might be desirable to tee that
> to a file and check it for possible issues).
>
> Without the above information it's difficult to 'get a read' on this and
> provide any useful insight.
>
>
> David Fitzjarrell
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10:54 AM, John D Parker <orclwzrd@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> On 11.2.0.3 on linux, I'm getting session waits of 16070 days. This
> equates to 44 years in my math. This smells like the old overflow issue
> that I remember from days of old. My google fu is not working to find
> anything related to excessive, impossible, unreasonable, overflow session
> wait times. Anyone have some info? or a bug number? This is making me
> crazy. The other thing is that it seems to be some how related to slow redo
> log performance in the log writer. But I'm seeing non idle sql net message
> for client waits and other events at 16000+ days of wait, doesn't matter
> which column in v$session I look at that math comes back the same. truly
> bizarre.
>
> Frustrated,
> john
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
