Archecker Results

Hi, We've IDS 7.30 UC8, 7.31.UC2, 7.31 UC5 on SunOS 5.6. I use ontape to take backup on disk (a regular Veritas File System). For one of Informix instances, we have following archecker result: ========================================================== $ archecker -tdsvInformix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UC2 Program Name: archecker Version: 4.4 Released: 02/22/99 17:24 Compiled: 02/22/99 17:26 on SunOS 5.5.1 Generic_103640-24 AC_STORAGE /tmp AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_msg.log AC_VERBOSE on Please put in tape number 1. Type 1 <return> or 0 to end: 1 ........................ Please put in tape number 2. Type 2 <return> or 0 to end: 0 Scan PASSED Control page checks PASSED Reserve page validation PASSED Table checks FAILEDr_f BLOBChunk checks PASSED Tables/Fragments validated: 328 Tables with missing data: 24 Total missing pages: 72 $ ================================================================== This is an operational instance and Users have no complaint what so ever about any missing data. Can anybody explain the reasons of FAILED TABLE CHECKS? What can I do to prevent it? The archecker for another instance on the same box returns no error. Thanks For Your Help. Regards, Nick. AC_CONFIG file #************************************************************************** AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_mel.log # archecker message log AC_STORAGE /tmp # Directory used for temp storage AC_VERBOSE 1 # 1 verbose messages 0 terse messages AC_TAPEDEV /inf/backup/viamel/arc # Backup Device For Instance AC_TAPEBLOCK 128 # Tape block size (Kbytes)

Nick Kataria wrote: > Hi, > > We've IDS 7.30 UC8, 7.31.UC2, 7.31 UC5 on SunOS 5.6. I use ontape to take > backup on disk (a regular Veritas File System). > > For one of Informix instances, we have following archecker result: > ========================================================== > $ archecker -tdsv> Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UC2 > Program Name: archecker > Version: 4.4 > Released: 02/22/99 17:24 > Compiled: 02/22/99 17:26 on SunOS 5.5.1 Generic_103640-24 > > AC_STORAGE /tmp > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_msg.log > AC_VERBOSE on > > Please put in tape number 1. > Type 1 <return> or 0 to end: 1 > ........................ > Please put in tape number 2. > Type 2 <return> or 0 to end: 0 > > Scan PASSED > Control page checks PASSED > Reserve page validation PASSED > Table checks FAILEDr_f > BLOBChunk checks PASSED > Tables/Fragments validated: 328 > Tables with missing data: 24 > Total missing pages: 72 > $ > ================================================================== > This is an operational instance and Users have no complaint what so ever > about any missing data. > Archecker is telling you that some pages that the bitmaps on the archive say should have data, and therefore should have been copied to the tape, were not found. That 72 such pages are missing affecting 24 tables. This means that if you lost a disk containing one or more of these pages and had to restore the tape these 24 tables would be missing data that the engine thinks should be there. Those pages would be garbage. Your users have not noticed anything missing because they are not missing on disk only on the archive. Report this to Informix tech support. > > Can anybody explain the reasons of FAILED TABLE CHECKS? > What can I do to prevent it? > A bug in the archive thread in the oninit or in the I/O function in ontape. > > The archecker for another instance on the same box returns no error. Whatever situation triggered the bug to miss the pages, usually high activity on the server (though not neccessarily), did not occur on the other instance during the archive. Art S. Kagel > > > Thanks For Your Help. > Regards, > Nick. > > AC_CONFIG file > #************************************************************************** > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_mel.log # archecker message log > AC_STORAGE /tmp # Directory used for temp storage > AC_VERBOSE 1 # 1 verbose messages 0 terse > messages > AC_TAPEDEV /inf/backup/viamel/arc # Backup Device For Instance > AC_TAPEBLOCK 128 # Tape block size (Kbytes)

Thanks Art. Is the bug related to ontape only? If I use onbar or onarchive, can I get rid of this bug? Or All these utilities use the archive thread that contains the bug? The application we running with Informix, deletes many rows from many table regularly - does not keep history. Does it has any affect on the archive? Regards, Nick. Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message news:38FC6C55.ADCB6FF1@bloomberg.net... > Nick Kataria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We've IDS 7.30 UC8, 7.31.UC2, 7.31 UC5 on SunOS 5.6. I use ontape to take > > backup on disk (a regular Veritas File System). > > > > For one of Informix instances, we have following archecker result: > > ========================================================== > > $ archecker -tdsv> > Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UC2 > > Program Name: archecker > > Version: 4.4 > > Released: 02/22/99 17:24 > > Compiled: 02/22/99 17:26 on SunOS 5.5.1 Generic_103640-24 > > > > AC_STORAGE /tmp > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_msg.log > > AC_VERBOSE on > > > > Please put in tape number 1. > > Type 1 <return> or 0 to end: 1 > > ........................ > > Please put in tape number 2. > > Type 2 <return> or 0 to end: 0 > > > > Scan PASSED > > Control page checks PASSED > > Reserve page validation PASSED > > Table checks FAILEDr_f > > BLOBChunk checks PASSED > > Tables/Fragments validated: 328 > > Tables with missing data: 24 > > Total missing pages: 72 > > $ > > ================================================================== > > This is an operational instance and Users have no complaint what so ever > > about any missing data. > > > > Archecker is telling you that some pages that the bitmaps on the archive > say should have data, and therefore should have been copied to the tape, > were not found. That 72 such pages are missing affecting 24 tables. This > means that if you lost a disk containing one or more of these pages and > had to restore the tape these 24 tables would be missing data that the > engine thinks should be there. Those pages would be garbage. Your > users have not noticed anything missing because they are not missing on > disk only on the archive. Report this to Informix tech support. > > > > > Can anybody explain the reasons of FAILED TABLE CHECKS? > > What can I do to prevent it? > > > > A bug in the archive thread in the oninit or in the I/O function in ontape. > > > > > > The archecker for another instance on the same box returns no error. > > Whatever situation triggered the bug to miss the pages, usually high > activity on the server (though not neccessarily), did not occur on the > other instance during the archive. > > Art S. Kagel > > > > > > > Thanks For Your Help. > > Regards, > > Nick. > > > > AC_CONFIG file > > #************************************************************************** > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_mel.log # archecker message log > > AC_STORAGE /tmp # Directory used for temp storage > > AC_VERBOSE 1 # 1 verbose messages 0 terse > > messages > > AC_TAPEDEV /inf/backup/viamel/arc # Backup Device For Instance > > AC_TAPEBLOCK 128 # Tape block size (Kbytes) >

Nick Kataria wrote: > Thanks Art. > > Is the bug related to ontape only? > > If I use onbar or onarchive, can I get rid of this bug? Or All these > utilities use the archive thread that contains the bug? I don't know of any specific bug like you describe, except one in versions earlier than IDS7.14 and OL5.08, but it sounds just like that one which was supposedly fixed several years ago. If the bug is in the archive thread itself then all of the archiving utilities will be affected as the same thread gathers pages for all three. That is why I strongly suggest that you contacht tech support as John Miller III (who co-wrote archecker to track down that nasty bug a few years ago) is always looking for evidence that either archecker is broken or that bugs remain in the archive process and of course the rest of the Informix community likes to have archives work as they should. Art S. Kagel > > The application we running with Informix, deletes many rows from many table > regularly - does not keep history. Does it has any affect on the archive? > > Regards, > Nick. > > Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message > news:38FC6C55.ADCB6FF1@bloomberg.net... > > Nick Kataria wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We've IDS 7.30 UC8, 7.31.UC2, 7.31 UC5 on SunOS 5.6. I use ontape to > take > > > backup on disk (a regular Veritas File System). > > > > > > For one of Informix instances, we have following archecker result: > > > ========================================================== > > > $ archecker -tdsv> > > Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UC2 > > > Program Name: archecker > > > Version: 4.4 > > > Released: 02/22/99 17:24 > > > Compiled: 02/22/99 17:26 on SunOS 5.5.1 Generic_103640-24 > > > > > > AC_STORAGE /tmp > > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_msg.log > > > AC_VERBOSE on > > > > > > Please put in tape number 1. > > > Type 1 <return> or 0 to end: 1 > > > ........................ > > > Please put in tape number 2. > > > Type 2 <return> or 0 to end: 0 > > > > > > Scan PASSED > > > Control page checks PASSED > > > Reserve page validation PASSED > > > Table checks FAILEDr_f > > > BLOBChunk checks PASSED > > > Tables/Fragments validated: 328 > > > Tables with missing data: 24 > > > Total missing pages: 72 > > > $ > > > ================================================================== > > > This is an operational instance and Users have no complaint what so ever > > > about any missing data. > > > > > > > Archecker is telling you that some pages that the bitmaps on the archive > > say should have data, and therefore should have been copied to the tape, > > were not found. That 72 such pages are missing affecting 24 tables. This > > means that if you lost a disk containing one or more of these pages and > > had to restore the tape these 24 tables would be missing data that the > > engine thinks should be there. Those pages would be garbage. Your > > users have not noticed anything missing because they are not missing on > > disk only on the archive. Report this to Informix tech support. > > > > > > > > Can anybody explain the reasons of FAILED TABLE CHECKS? > > > What can I do to prevent it? > > > > > > > A bug in the archive thread in the oninit or in the I/O function in > ontape. > > > > > > > > > > The archecker for another instance on the same box returns no error. > > > > Whatever situation triggered the bug to miss the pages, usually high > > activity on the server (though not neccessarily), did not occur on the > > other instance during the archive. > > > > Art S. Kagel > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks For Your Help. > > > Regards, > > > Nick. > > > > > > AC_CONFIG file > > > > #************************************************************************** > > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_mel.log # archecker message log > > > AC_STORAGE /tmp # Directory used for temp > storage > > > AC_VERBOSE 1 # 1 verbose messages 0 terse > > > messages > > > AC_TAPEDEV /inf/backup/viamel/arc # Backup Device For Instance > > > AC_TAPEBLOCK 128 # Tape block size (Kbytes) > >

In article <38FC874D.22DB1D38@bloomberg.net>, Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.net> writes >Nick Kataria wrote: > >> Thanks Art. >> >> Is the bug related to ontape only? >> >> If I use onbar or onarchive, can I get rid of this bug? Or All these >> utilities use the archive thread that contains the bug? > >I don't know of any specific bug like you describe, except one in versions >earlier than IDS7.14 and OL5.08, but it sounds just like that one which >was supposedly fixed several years ago. If the bug is in the archive >thread itself then all of the archiving utilities will be affected as the same >thread gathers pages for all three. That is why I strongly suggest that you >contacht tech support as John Miller III (who co-wrote archecker to >track down that nasty bug a few years ago) is always looking for >evidence that either archecker is broken or that bugs remain in the >archive process and of course the rest of the Informix community likes to >have archives work as they should. > >Art S. Kagel > 117032 LOADING TABLES CAUSES TIMESTAMP VALUES TO INCREASE TOO FAST. CAN CAUSE PHYSICAL RECOVERY, LOGICAL RECOVERY AND ARCHIVE PROBLEMS - CORRUPT DATA Fixed in 7.31.UC7. Timestamp variations of > MAXUINT/2 cause problems select value sh_stamp, hex(value) hex_sh_stamp from sysshmhdr where name matches "stamp"; to get the current timestamp value. Also 126662 ONLINE ARCHIVE MISSES ALL DATA PAGES WHICH ARE CLASSIFED AS VERY OLD PA... Can't get the full description for this. PS 7.31.UC6 should be out soon, anyone know when 7.31.UC7 is out? > >> >> The application we running with Informix, deletes many rows from many table >> regularly - does not keep history. Does it has any affect on the archive? >> >> Regards, >> Nick. >> >> Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message >> news:38FC6C55.ADCB6FF1@bloomberg.net... >> > Nick Kataria wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > We've IDS 7.30 UC8, 7.31.UC2, 7.31 UC5 on SunOS 5.6. I use ontape to >> take >> > > backup on disk (a regular Veritas File System). >> > > >> > > For one of Informix instances, we have following archecker result: >> > > ========================================================== >> > > $ archecker -tdsv>> > > Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.UC2 >> > > Program Name: archecker >> > > Version: 4.4 >> > > Released: 02/22/99 17:24 >> > > Compiled: 02/22/99 17:26 on SunOS 5.5.1 Generic_103640-24 >> > > >> > > AC_STORAGE /tmp >> > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_msg.log >> > > AC_VERBOSE on >> > > >> > > Please put in tape number 1. >> > > Type 1 <return> or 0 to end: 1 >> > > ........................ >> > > Please put in tape number 2. >> > > Type 2 <return> or 0 to end: 0 >> > > >> > > Scan PASSED >> > > Control page checks PASSED >> > > Reserve page validation PASSED >> > > Table checks FAILEDr_f >> > > BLOBChunk checks PASSED >> > > Tables/Fragments validated: 328 >> > > Tables with missing data: 24 >> > > Total missing pages: 72 >> > > $ >> > > ================================================================== >> > > This is an operational instance and Users have no complaint what so ever >> > > about any missing data. >> > > >> > >> > Archecker is telling you that some pages that the bitmaps on the archive >> > say should have data, and therefore should have been copied to the tape, >> > were not found. That 72 such pages are missing affecting 24 tables. This >> > means that if you lost a disk containing one or more of these pages and >> > had to restore the tape these 24 tables would be missing data that the >> > engine thinks should be there. Those pages would be garbage. Your >> > users have not noticed anything missing because they are not missing on >> > disk only on the archive. Report this to Informix tech support. >> > >> > > >> > > Can anybody explain the reasons of FAILED TABLE CHECKS? >> > > What can I do to prevent it? >> > > >> > >> > A bug in the archive thread in the oninit or in the I/O function in >> ontape. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > The archecker for another instance on the same box returns no error. >> > >> > Whatever situation triggered the bug to miss the pages, usually high >> > activity on the server (though not neccessarily), did not occur on the >> > other instance during the archive. >> > >> > Art S. Kagel >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks For Your Help. >> > > Regards, >> > > Nick. >> > > >> > > AC_CONFIG file >> > > >> #************************************************************************** >> > > AC_MSGPATH /tmp/ac_mel.log # archecker message log >> > > AC_STORAGE /tmp # Directory used for temp >> storage >> > > AC_VERBOSE 1 # 1 verbose messages 0 terse >> > > messages >> > > AC_TAPEDEV /inf/backup/viamel/arc # Backup Device For Instance >> > > AC_TAPEBLOCK 128 # Tape block size (Kbytes) >> > > -- David Williams