为了应对这些真实世界中常见的数据恢复困局，需要特殊的恢复手段才能恢复其ORACLE DB中的数据。可以应对在完全没有备份情况下的SYSTEM表空间丢失、误 *** 作ORACLE数据字典表、由于断电引起的数据字典不一致等数据库无法顺利打开的场景，也可以挽回误截断(Truncate)/删除(Delete)/业务数据表等人为的误 *** 作，并从容恢复数据。
甚至于仅仅接触过ORACLE数据库几天的非DBA 人员也可以轻松地使用PRM，这得益于PRM简单的安装、和全程图形化的人机交互界面；实施恢复的人员不需要专业的数据库知识，不需要学习任何命令，更无需了解数据库底层的存储结构。仅仅需要轻轻点击几下鼠标就能从容恢复数据。
对比传统恢复工具DUL，DUL是ORACLE原厂内部恢复工具，其使用需要通过ORACLE内部流程，一般仅有购买了ORACLE原厂的现场服务的用户能够在原厂工程师的协助下使用该工具。PRM打破了只有少数专业人士才能实施数据库恢复任务的限制，极大地缩短了从数据库故障到完整恢复数据的失败时间,降低了企业恢复数据的总成本。
套Power AIX上的9.2.0.1系统在数据库打开过程中遇到ORA-00600:[2667]内部错误，详细日志如下:Wed Mar 9 19:03:38 2011
RESETLOGS is being done without consistancy checks. This may result
in a corrupted database. The database should be recreated.
RESETLOGS after incomplete recovery UNTIL CHANGE 117699122479
Resetting resetlogs activation ID 2197911857 (0x83017931)
Wed Mar 9 19:03:47 2011
LGWR: Primary database is in CLUSTER CONSISTENT mode
Assigning activation ID 2284878888 (0x88307c28)
Thread 1 opened at log sequence 1
Current log# 3 seq# 1 mem# 0: /s01/maclean/oradata/PROD/redo03.log
Successful open of redo thread 1.
Wed Mar 9 19:03:47 2011
SMON: enabling cache recovery
Wed Mar 9 19:03:47 2011
Errors in file /s01/maclean/admin/PROD/udump/PROD_ora_585914.trc:
ORA-07445: exception encountered: core dump [] [] [] [] [] []
Wed Mar 9 19:03:48 2011
Errors in file /s01/maclean/admin/PROD/bdump/PROD_pmon_602286.trc:
ORA-07445: exception encountered: core dump [] [] [] [] [] []
Wed Mar 9 19:03:50 2011
Errors in file /s01/maclean/admin/PROD/bdump/PROD_lgwr_548884.trc:
ORA-00600: internal error code, arguments: [2667], [1], [1], [3], [1739273391], [1739273391], [1739273391], [7267]
LGWR: terminating instance due to error 600
相关的初始化参数
fast_start_mttr_target = 300
_allow_resetlogs_corruption= TRUE
undo_management = AUTO
undo_tablespace = UNDOTBS1
以上可以看到lgwr关键进程在数据库open后几秒后遭遇了ORA-00600:[2667]内部错误后终止了实例。
该数据库在之前因为丢失当前日志文件进行了已经实施了一系列的非常规恢复 *** 作，包括设置一系列的underscore参数:
Before I provide the steps to fix the ora-00600 error, I want to tell you that this database is opened with the unsupported parameter"allow_resetlogs_corruption".
*************************************************************************
* By forcing open the database using this parameter, there is a strong *
* likelihood of logical corruption, possibly affecting the data *
* dictionary. Oracle does not guarantee that all of the data will be *
* accessible nor will it support a database that has been opened by *
* this method and that the database users will be allowed to continue *
* work. All this does is provide a way to get at the contents of the *
* database for extraction, usually by export. It is up to you to *
* determine the amount of lost data and to correct any logical *
* corruption issues. *
* *
*************************************************************************
2) The steps to get rid of the ora-00600 are as follows:
+ Change UNDO_MANAGEMENT=AUTO to
UNDO_MANAGEMENT=MANUAL
+ Remove or comment out UNDO_TABLESPACE and UNDO_RETENTION.
+ Add
_CORRUPTED_ROLLBACK_SEGMENTS =(comma separated list of Automatic Undo segments)
Example:
_CORRUPTED_ROLLBACK_SEGMENTS = (_SYSSMU1$, _SYSSMU2$, _SYSSMU3$, _SYSSMU4$,
_SYSSMU5$, _SYSSMU6$, _SYSSMU7$, _SYSSMU8$, _SYSSMU9$, _SYSSMU10$)
Note, sometimes the alert log will tell you what Automatic Undo segments are in use.
Search the alert log for SYSS. If the alert log does not contain that information then use _SYSSMU1$
through _SYSSMU10$ as shown in the example above.
In UNIX you can issue this command to get the undo segment names:
$ strings system01.dbf | grep _SYSSMU | cut -d $ -f 1 | sort -u
From the output of the strings command above, add a $ to end of each _SYSSMU undo segment name.
++ Startup mount the database as follows:
SQL > startup mount
SQL > recover database
SQl > alter database open
*._corrupted_rollback_segments= (_SYSSMU730$, _SYSSMU731$, _SYSSMU732$, _SYSSMU733$, _SYSSMU734$,
_SYSSMU735$, _SYSSMU736$, _SYSSMU737$, _SYSSMU738$, _SYSSMU739$, _SYSSMU744$, _SYSSMU740$, _SYSSMU741$,
_SYSSMU742$, _SYSSMU743$, _SYSSMU744$, _SYSSMU745$, _SYSSMU746$, _SYSSMU747$, _SYSSMU748$, _SYSSMU749$, _SYSSMU74t$,
_SYSSMU75$, _SYSSMU750$, _SYSSMU751$, _SYSSMU752$, _SYSSMU753$, _SYSSMU754$, _SYSSMU755$, _SYSSMU756$, _SYSSMU757$,
_SYSSMU758$, _SYSSMU759$, _SYSSMU76$, _SYSSMU760$, _SYSSMU761$, _SYSSMU762$, _SYSSMU763$, _SYSSMU764$, _SYSSMU765$,
_SYSSMU766$, _SYSSMU767$, _SYSSMU768$)
如果自己搞不定可以找ASKMACLEAN专业ORACLE数据库修复团队成员帮您恢复!
如果自己搞不定可以找诗檀软件专业ORACLE数据库修复团队成员帮您恢复!
诗檀软件专业数据库修复团队
Oracle的损坏/坏块 主要分以下几种：
ORA-1578
ORA-8103
ORA-1410
ORA-1499
ORA-1578
ORA-81##
ORA-14##
ORA-26040
ORA-600 Errors
Block Corruption
Index Corruption
Row Corruption
UNDO Corruption
Control File
Consistent Read
Dictionary
File/RDBA/BL
Error DescriptionCorruption related to:
ORA-1578ORA-1578一般为Oracle检测到存在物理坏块问题，包括其检测数据块中的checksum不正确，或者tail_chk信息不正确等。ORA-1578 is reported when a block is thought to be corrupt on read.
Block
数据块
OERR: ORA-1578 “ORACLE data block corrupted (file # %s, block # %s)” Master Note
OERR: ORA-1578 “ORACLE data block corrupted (file # %s, block # %s)”
Fractured Block explanation
Handling Oracle Block Corruptions in Oracle7/8/8i/9i/10g/11g
Diagnosing and Resolving 1578 reported on a Local Index of a Partitioned table
ORA-1410
ORA-1410错误常见于从INDEX或其他途径获得的ROWID,到数据表中查询发现没有对应的记录。
该错误可能因为数据表与其索引存在不一致，也可能是分区的数据表本身存在问题。
This error is raised when an operation refers to a ROWID in a table for which there is no such row.
The reference to a ROWID may be implicit from a WHERE CURRENT OF clause or directly from a WHERE ROWID=… clause.
ORA 1410 indicates the ROWID is for a BLOCK that is not part of this table.
Row
数据行
Understanding The ORA-1410
Summary Of Bugs Containing ORA 1410
OERR: ORA 1410 “invalid ROWID”
ORA-8103
该ORA-8103可能由多个BUG引起，例如LOB在10.2.0.4之前可能会由于BUG覆盖了另一张表的segment header，导致出现ORA-8103错误。
诊断该问题可以从数据表的segment header和data_object_id入手。
The object has been deleted by another user since the operation began.
If the error is reproducible, following may be the reasons:-
a.) The header block has an invalid block type.
b.) The data_object_id (seg/obj) stored in the block is different than the data_object_id stored in the segment header. See dba_objects.data_object_id and compare it to the decimal value stored in the block (field seg/obj).
Block
数据块
ORA-8103 Troubleshooting, Diagnostic and Solution
OERR: ORA-8103 “object no longer exists” / Troubleshooting, Diagnostic and Solution
ORA-8102ORA-8102常见于索引键值与表上存的值不一致。An ORA-08102 indicates that there is a mismatch between the key(s) stored in the index and the values stored in the table. What typically happens is the index is built and at some future time, some type of corruption occurs, either in the table or index, to cause the mismatch.
Index
索引
OERR ORA-8102 “index key not found, obj# %s, file %s, block %s (%s)
ORA-1499对表和索引做交叉验证时发现问题An error occurred when validating an index or a table using the ANALYZE command.
One or more entries does not point to the appropriate cross-reference.
Index
索引
ORA-1499. Table/Index row count mismatch
OERR: ORA-1499 table/Index Cross Reference Failure – see trace file
ORA-1498 Generally this is a result of an ANALYZE … VALIDATE … command.
This error generally manifests itself when there is inconsistency in the data/Index block. Some of the block check errors that may be found:-
a.) Row locked by a non-existent transaction
b.) The amount of space used is not equal to block size
c.) Transaction header lock count mismatch.
While support are processing the tracefile it may be worth the re-running the ANALYZE after restarting the database to help show if the corruption is consistent or if it ‘moves’.
Send the tracefile to support for analysis.
If the ANALYZE was against an index you should check the whole object. Eg: Find the tablename and execute:
ANALYZE TABLE xxx VALIDATE STRUCTURE CASCADE Block
OERR: ORA 1498 “block check failure – see trace file”
ORA-26040由于采用过nologging/unrecoverable选项的redo生成机制，且做过对应的recover，导致数据块中被填满了0XFF，导致报错ORA-26040。Trying to access data in block that was loaded without redo generation using the NOLOGGING/UNRECOVERABLE option.
This Error raises always together with ORA-1578
Block
数据块
OERR ORA-26040 Data block was loaded using the NOLOGGING option
ORA-1578 / ORA-26040 Corrupt blocks by NOLOGGING – Error explanation and solution
ORA-1578 ORA-26040 in a LOB segment – Script to solve the errors
ORA-1578 ORA-26040 in 11g for DIRECT PATH with NOARCHIVELOG even if LOGGING is enabled
ORA-1578 ORA-26040 On Awr Table
Errors ORA-01578, ORA-26040 On Standby Database
Workflow Tables ORA-01578 ORACLE data block corrupted ORA-26040 Data block was loaded using the NOLOGGING option
ORA-1578, ORA-26040 Data block was loaded using the NOLOGGING option
ORA-600[12700]
从索引获得的ROWID，对应到数据表时发现不存在数据行错误。
一把是一致性度consistent read问题
Oracle is trying to access a row using its ROWID, which has been obtained from an index.
A mismatch was found between the index rowid and the data block it is pointing to. The rowid points to a non-existent row in the data block. The corruption can be in data and/or index blocks.
ORA-600 [12700] can also be reported due to a consistent read (CR) problem.
Consistent Read
一致性读
Resolving an ORA-600 [12700] error in Oracle 8 and above.
ORA-600 [12700] “Index entry Points to Missing ROWID”
ORA-600[3020]主要问题是redo和数据块中的信息不一致This is called a ‘STUCK RECOVERY’.
There is an inconsistency between the information stored in the redo and the information stored in a database block being recovered.Redo
ORA-600 [3020] “Stuck Recovery”
Information Required for Root Cause Analysis of ORA-600 [3020] (stuck recovery)
ORA-600[4194]主要是redo记录与回滚rollback/undo的记录不一致A mismatch has been detected between Redo records and rollback (Undo) records.
We are validating the Undo record number relating to the change being applied against the maximum undo record number recorded in the undo block.
This error is reported when the validation fails.Undo
ORA-600 [4194] “Undo Record Number Mismatch While Adding Undo Record”
Basic Steps to be Followed While Solving ORA-00600 [4194]/[4193] Errors Without Using Unsupported parameter
ORA-600[4193]主要是redo记录与回滚rollback/undo的记录不一致A mismatch has been detected between Redo records and Rollback (Undo) records.
We are validating the Undo block sequence number in the undo block against the Redo block sequence number relating to the change being applied.
This error is reported when this validation fails.Undo
ORA-600 [4193] “seq# mismatch while adding undo record”
Basic Steps to be Followed While Solving ORA-00600 [4194]/[4193] Errors Without Using Unsupported parameter
Ora-600 [4193] When Opening Or Shutting Down A Database
ORA-600 [4193] When Trying To Open The Database
ORA-600[4137]transaction id不匹配，问题可能存在与回滚段中或者对象本身存在讹误While backing out an undo record (i.e. at the time of rollback) we found a transaction id mis-match indicating either a corruption in the rollback segment or corruption in an object which the rollback segment is trying to apply undo records on.
This would indicate a corrupted rollback segment.Undo/Redo
ORA-600 [4137] “XID in Undo and Redo Does Not Match”
ORA-600[6101] Not enough free space was found when inserting a row into an index leaf block during the application of undo.Index
ORA-600 [6101] “insert into leaf block (undo)”
ORA-600[2103] Oracle is attempting to read or update a generic entry in the control file.
If the entry number is invalid, ORA-600 [2130] is logged.Control File
ORA-600 [2130] “Attempt to access non-existant controlfile entry”
ORA-600[4512] Oracle is checking the status of transaction locks within a block.
If the lock number is greater than the number of lock entries, ORA-600 [4512] is reported followed by a stack trace, process state and block dump.
This error possibly indicates a block corruption.Block
ORA-600 [4512] “Lock count mismatch”
ORA-600[2662]主要是发现一个数据块的SCN甚至超过了当前SCN，常规解决途径有调整SCN等，但11.2以后Oracle公司使较多调整SCN的方法失效了A data block SCN is ahead of the current SCN.
The ORA-600 [2662] occurs when an SCN is compared to the dependent SCN stored in a UGA variable.
If the SCN is less than the dependent SCN then we signal the ORA-600 [2662] internal error.Block
ORA-600 [2662] “Block SCN is ahead of Current SCN”
ORA 600 [2662] DURING STARTUP
ORA-600[4097]访问一个回滚段头以便确认事务是否已提交时，发现XID有问题We are accessing a rollback segment header to see if a transaction has been committed.
However, the xid given is in the future of the transaction table.
This could be due to a rollback segment corruption issue OR you might be hitting the following known problem.Undo
欢迎分享，转载请注明来源：内存溢出
微信扫一扫
支付宝扫一扫
评论列表（0条）