Re: Checkpoint Blocked on Restore?

Some additional information/ The restore ran, to a point. There is actuall a problem on both servers with the instance configuration. I started the restore and walked away. Four and half hours later, it completed...restoring a total of 5.8 gigabytes. However, some of the dbspaces did not get restored due to incorrect instance configuration (permissions on dbspaces incorrect). Bottom line,we will correct the instance problem, then see what happens. No need for further response. Thanks to those that did respond. Ted Whittington On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:48:18 +1200, "Murray Wood \\(IList\\)" <ifxmaillist@quanta.co.nz> wrote: > >What Informix version? >Post onstat -m, onstat -l >What part of the restore locks up? Does then physical restore complete? >Are you trying to do a logical restore too? > >MW > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org >> [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of >> twhitti615@yahoo.com >> Sent: Sunday, 14 August 2005 9:04 a.m. >> To: informix-list@iiug.org >> Subject: Checkpoint Blocked on Restore? >> >> I have a checkpoint blocked message when I try to to a cold restore >> using ontape. (ontape -r). It is a small database about 6 gig. >> >> We are migrating an instance from one box to another. The >> PRODUCTION onconfig has the following >> >> LOGFILES 20 # Number of logical log files >> LOGSIZE 500 # Logical log size (Kbytes)>> >> >> When the restore starts, the online.log file has the following: >> "WARNING! Logical log layout may cause Dynamic Server to get >> into a locked state. Recommended smallest logical log size >> is 2 times maximum concurrent user threads." >> >> The restore locks up about 12 minutes into the process. >> >> Obviously my logs are not big enough. However, they are the >> same as on the production box. I have thought to >> reinitialize the instance, giving it more log space, but I >> believe that the restore will simply revert back to the above. >> >> Any help would be very much appreciated. >> >> Thank you in advance, >> Ted >> >> > > >sending to informix-list