oracle 9i: errors by clone a DB by a script

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Andreas Mosmann - 21 Apr 2008 17:50 GMT

Hi,

I have to clone a DB to built a Test DB.
To avoid manual work our admin wrote a script, that in general
- fills some files with file structure
- fills some files with parameters
- shuts down the database
- copies and packs all datafiles
- startd the database

and back:
- fills the filestructure from files
- rebuilds password and controlfiles
- builds a service
- starts the database

there are still some manual steps, f.e. to fill
tnsnames.ora/listener.ora
but in general it works fine.

My problem is, that it doesnt work in my case, and I do not know, why.
My explicit question is

what are possible reasons for

.. Database opened with MOUNT ...
ORA-01113: Für Datei '1' ist Datentrõger-Recovery notwendig
ORA-01110: Datendatei 1: 'D:\ORACLE\ORADATA\XXXXX\SYSTEM01.DBF'
-> recover database
-> shutdown
-> startup
.. Database opened with MOUNT ...
ORA-01092: ORACLE-Instance beendet. Verbindungsabbruch erzwungen.

what can I look for?

Andreas Mosmann

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

Frank van Bortel - 21 Apr 2008 20:22 GMT

> .. Database opened with MOUNT ...
> ORA-01113: Für Datei '1' ist Datentrõger-Recovery notwendig
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> what can I look for?

1) A new administrator - look up db cloning with RMAN:
7 lines of code...
2) trace and log files - alter log to start with.

And you could provide a little more info:
* What version of Oracle
* What platform (other than the obvious Microsoft)
* same, or other machine (if other - patch levels the same?!?)

FvB

Reply to this Message

Andreas Mosmann - 21 Apr 2008 22:00 GMT

Frank van Bortel schrieb am 21.04.2008 in
<2bcf4$480ce95c$524b5c40$22691@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>:

>> .. Database opened with MOUNT ...
>> ORA-01113: Für Datei '1' ist Datentrõger-Recovery notwendig
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> what can I look for?

> 1) A new administrator - look up db cloning with RMAN:
> 7 lines of code...

Sounds simple, but I did not find up to now. I look for.

> 2) trace and log files - alter log to start with.

> And you could provide a little more info:

Sorry, I didn't want to be boring ;)

> * What version of Oracle

Oracle 9.2.0.7i

> * What platform (other than the obvious Microsoft)

MS Windows (Source: Win2003 Server, Destination: WinXP Prof)

> * same, or other machine (if other - patch levels the same?!?)

different machines, same patchlevel, different number of processors

The destination machines are a personal PC and a LapTop.

In former times I exported the database and imported it into a new one.
But in this case I found no way to keep the BLOB- data. All the rows
containing a BLOB are killed after this export/import.
And I hoped to get along without the manual stuff as recompile a.s.o.

> FvB

Thank you very much
Andreas Mosmann

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

Frank van Bortel - 27 Apr 2008 12:34 GMT

> Frank van Bortel schrieb am 21.04.2008 in
> <2bcf4$480ce95c$524b5c40$22691@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> 7 lines of code...
> Sounds simple, but I did not find up to now. I look for.

Ahw come on: "oracle rman clone" yield two useful examples
in the top-5

>> 2) trace and log files - alter log to start with.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> The destination machines are a personal PC and a LapTop.

Same endianess, same # of bits? E.g. not 2003/64 to
XP/32? If so, follow Sybrand's suggestion:
- take a cold (RMAN?) backup, and copy the stuff over.
Re-create the services, and start your engines.

Reply to this Message

sybrandb@hccnet.nl - 25 Apr 2008 18:48 GMT

>what can I look for?

The admin. His script sucks.
There is a mismatch between the SYSTEM tablespace and the
controlfiles.
Why don't you just use RMAN duplicate, or a RMAN cold backup?
Why do people rather 'engineer' their own crap solution, as opposed to
reading the docs, and using the tools Oracle already provides for this
purpose?
And why do they start crying out for help here, without even trying to
troubleshoot it?

Signature

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Reply to this Message

Andreas Mosmann - 28 Apr 2008 12:09 GMT

sybrandb@hccnet.nl schrieb am 25.04.2008 in
<j564141aasgflk0e42sfbev8cq1t2201jl@4ax.com>:

>> what can I look for?

> The admin. His script sucks.

> There is a mismatch between the SYSTEM tablespace and the
> controlfiles.

> Why don't you just use RMAN duplicate, or a RMAN cold backup?
> Why do people rather 'engineer' their own crap solution, as opposed to
> reading the docs, and using the tools Oracle already provides for this
> purpose?

Maybe because there are more Oracle docs I can read all my life?
And, by the way, many oracle tools are built by the flintstones (f.e.
SQL plus *), there are and must be better ways to do the work.

> And why do they start crying out for help here, without even trying to
> troubleshoot it?

Sorry, why do you think I did not try to troubleshoot this? Sure I am
part of the problem and the admin is it too. But in my opinion oracle is
reason for it because there is no intuitive to do some standard actions.

In my opinion oracle hides important information inside a mass of
useless information.
You have to decide whether you administrate oracle or do any other work.
But in my case my normal work is to develop database software and
therefore I have to administrate my OracleDB on my own. There is not
enough manpower to split into admins/developers in this situation.

I read a lot of your answers and there was a lot of helping answers.
But please accept, that oracle is not that userfriendly as it should in
my sight.

Andreas

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

sybrandb@hccnet.nl - 28 Apr 2008 16:36 GMT

>Maybe because there are more Oracle docs I can read all my life?
>And, by the way, many oracle tools are built by the flintstones (f.e.
>SQL plus *), there are and must be better ways to do the work.

You do not know what you are talking about.
Sql*plus is the successor of UFI.
UFI is the acronym for U(ser)F(riendly)I(nterface).
Now THAT was a nightmare!!!

If you can't work with sql*plus, I suggest you stick to Mickeysoft
products.

Signature

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Reply to this Message

Andreas Mosmann - 29 Apr 2008 09:38 GMT

sybrandb@hccnet.nl schrieb am 28.04.2008 in
<vkrb145jmii034ah3ek5jqp2vh5v795cco@4ax.com>:

>> Maybe because there are more Oracle docs I can read all my life?
>> And, by the way, many oracle tools are built by the flintstones (f.e.
>> SQL plus *), there are and must be better ways to do the work.

> You do not know what you are talking about.

Doesn't I?

> Sql*plus is the successor of UFI.
> UFI is the acronym for U(ser)F(riendly)I(nterface).

A joke, isn't it?

> If you can't work with sql*plus, I suggest you stick to Mickeysoft
> products.

Why should I?
1.) I can work with sql*plus. And I also can undress me with a knife.
But both seems to me not really useful if there are better ways (and
there are)
2.) I do not have the choice of RDBMS
3.) Only because I think that some tools are not that useful as possible
I do not have a problem with oracle at all

Nevertheless
Thank you
Andreas Mosmann

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

joel garry - 28 Apr 2008 21:00 GMT

On Apr 28, 4:09 am, Andreas Mosmann <mosm...@expires-30-04-2008.news-
group.org> wrote:

> Sorry, why do you think I did not try to troubleshoot this? Sure I am
> part of the problem and the admin is it too. But in my opinion oracle is
> reason for it because there is no intuitive to do some standard actions.

Backups and recovery are simply not intuitive to begin with. The
"standard actions" have no standards.

> In my opinion oracle hides important information inside a mass of
> useless information.
> You have to decide whether you administrate oracle or do any other work.
> But in my case my normal work is to develop database software and
> therefore I have to administrate my OracleDB on my own. There is not
> enough manpower to split into admins/developers in this situation.

That's why Oracle has made 2-day DBA tutorials and Backup and Recovery
Quick Start guides. They even debated whether XE should have
transactional recovery. Guess what they decided?

> I read a lot of your answers and there was a lot of helping answers.
> But please accept, that oracle is not that userfriendly as it should in
> my sight.

I've long said the same thing, but they've addressed some of the
issues, and other issues derive directly from the richness and depth
of Oracle's functionality.

I've directly observed a number of SQL-Server apps crash
unrecoverably, because of the lack of administration. And my-sql is
just barely starting to even address backups. So your complaints are
really kind of "it's the worst except for all the others," and perhaps
unjustified positive assumptions about your admin and how things
should and do work.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.12.html#subj3

Reply to this Message

Andreas Mosmann - 29 Apr 2008 09:00 GMT

joel garry schrieb am 28.04.2008 in
<fc664b58-51c9-4893-aac9-60c12981bc64@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

> On Apr 28, 4:09 am, Andreas Mosmann <mosm...@expires-30-04-2008.news-
> group.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, why do you think I did not try to troubleshoot this? Sure I am
>> part of the problem and the admin is it too. But in my opinion oracle is
>> reason for it because there is no intuitive to do some standard actions.

> Backups and recovery are simply not intuitive to begin with. The
> "standard actions" have no standards.

The "standard action" I look for is a clone of a database. I am sure
that
it depends of the point of view, but I am a software developer and as
such I often need an actual copy of the database to try something.
And I suppose that most databases and of course oracle databases too are
delivered with an application using the database.

>> I read a lot of your answers and there was a lot of helping answers.
>> But please accept, that oracle is not that userfriendly as it should in
>> my sight.

> I've long said the same thing, but they've addressed some of the
> issues, and other issues derive directly from the richness and depth
> of Oracle's functionality.

> I've directly observed a number of SQL-Server apps crash
> unrecoverably, because of the lack of administration. And my-sql is
> just barely starting to even address backups. So your complaints are
> really kind of "it's the worst except for all the others," and perhaps
> unjustified positive assumptions about your admin and how things
> should and do work.

I am willing to learn, but it is impossible to learn all the oracle
knowledge AND to be a good software developer. I am not responsible for
backup and recovery, I (as probably all software developers) only
frequently need a copy of an actual database.
And by the way: shortest way for me was to export/import a user of a
database, but when I started to use a blob field it did not work
anymore.
Call me a fool, but it seems to be a bug!
But now I found out that I can export/import the complete database as
system and it takes more time and warns me much more than before, but it
works.

I come along with oracle but in my opinion it must be allowed to wish
things that still doesn't exist. And I am sure that I am not the only
one with these wishes. Maybe there will be a version where the
enterprise manager has a button "Clone a DB" and if you start it will
ask you the following questions:
- server?
- sys/system - passwords?
- shrink db?
- delete existing db?
and all the other information concerning operation system, installed
oracle version/patchlevel and whatever it finds out itself.
Dream a little dream ...

> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.12.html#subj3

Thank you for your answer.
Andreas Mosmann

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

sybrandb@hccnet.nl - 29 Apr 2008 09:33 GMT

> And I am sure that I am not the only
>one with these wishes. Maybe there will be a version where the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>oracle version/patchlevel and whatever it finds out itself.
>Dream a little dream ...

It so happens, databases are *designed*, and one shouldn't have one
database per app.
What you describe are the Mickey Mouse procedures so typical for the
toy products provided by Mickeysoft.
Grow up, accept Oracle is much more mature than Mickeysoft will ever
produce, or stick to Mickeysoft.

Signature

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Reply to this Message

Andreas Mosmann - 29 Apr 2008 09:53 GMT

sybrandb@hccnet.nl schrieb am 29.04.2008 in
<86nd14tano88itspmv6fbobv49g6fpcf5q@4ax.com>:

> It so happens, databases are *designed*, and one shouldn't have one
> database per app.

Why? Please explain your view!
In general I have a customer that wants a solution for his problem.
There are some cases the solution is to develop a software using a
database, f.e. oracle. So I have to develop 1 Application and 1
Database.
Of course, if there already exists a db and the new problem/solution is
related to this data it is possible/useful to integrate the new
data/structure into the existing db and you have more than 1 app to only
one db.
It is also possible that there is an application collectiong data from
more than 1 source, maybe databases/web services or anything else. So
you have 1 application corresponding with more databases.

> What you describe are the Mickey Mouse procedures so typical for the
> toy products provided by Mickeysoft.

Ok, but what is wrong to spend time with useful and paid work instead of
doing the same boring stuff again and again? And please do not tell me
that it is impossible to do fulfil my "wish". Maybe it seems to be
useless for you, but impossible?

> Grow up, accept Oracle is much more mature than Mickeysoft will ever
> produce, or stick to Mickeysoft.

I did not criticised the way oracle is working inside but the delivered
tools. Do you really want to tell me that I have to use stone age tools
to work with a "mature" rdbms? If not, am I a wimp?

Andreas Mosmann

Signature

wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de

Reply to this Message

joel garry - 29 Apr 2008 18:29 GMT

On Apr 29, 1:00 am, Andreas Mosmann <mosm...@expires-30-04-2008.news-
group.org> wrote:

> I come along with oracle but in my opinion it must be allowed to wish
> things that still doesn't exist. And I am sure that I am not the only
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> oracle version/patchlevel and whatever it finds out itself.
> Dream a little dream ...

I see some of that on EM for 10.2.0.3 under Clone Database... I seem
to recall the patch level stuff is a new feature, I for one tend to
avoid new features.

But really, aren't these DBA tasks?

> 1.) I can work with sql*plus. And I also can undress me with a knife.
> But both seems to me not really useful if there are better ways (and
> there are)

Depends on the requirements. Undressing with knives sounds pretty
exciting for some requirements.

jg
--
@home.com
I thought the part of The Illustrated Man movie where they all had the
same dream, very disturbing.

Reply to this Message