11.2 RAC issue: 2nd instance won't start via srvctl

I encountered a very weird issue in Oracle on 11.2 RAC that I couldn't find any reference to on Metalink.  The issue occurred after I created a RAC database, registered it to CRS manually, started it up via srvctl. Everything was working fine up to this point.  The problem arose when I stopped and restarted the database with srvctl; only the first instance would start successfully.  The second instance wouldn't start due to this error:

CRS-2664: Resource 'ora.asm' is already running on 'node_name'

This was very strange because the instance would start just fine if I used sqlplus.  After further research amongst my colleagues and me, we found that there was an uncommented line in the /etc/hosts file that was causing the issue.  The line was:

::1   localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6

After having the SA comment this line out and bounce the second node that was having the problem starting the second instance, the second instances were started and restarted successfully via srvctl.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RMAN-10038: database session for channel prm3 terminated unexpectedly

Problem: I had an issue where I was trying to build a 1.7 TB Data Guard environment and kept receiving the highlighted error below.  I thought it was some type of fluke so I restarted the job 2 more times only to receive the same error. Fix: After researching the issue, I found it was because the sqlnet.ora needed to be configured correctly.  I added the entry " SQLNET.EXPIRE_TIME = 10 " to the sqlnet.ora on both the source and the target database servers under the RDBMS $ORACLE_HOME/network/admin.  Upon restarting the RMAN active database standby build, it was able to move past this error and built successfully. Starting backup at 07-MAY-17 channel prm1: starting datafile copy input datafile file number=00003 name=+DATA/testdb/datafile/undotbs1.262.940412881 channel prm2: starting datafile copy input datafile file number=00129 name=+DATA/testdb/datafile/welldoc1.390.940509955 channel prm3: starting datafile copy input datafile file number=00130 name=+DATA/test
Read more

ORA-17630: Mismatch in the remote file protocol version client 2 server 3

I was trying to create an Oracle Data Guard environment (physical standby) from an Oracle database running version 12.1.0.2. The database was running an older PSU version ("Database Patch Set Update : 12.1.0.2.161018 (24006101)") to be specific. Upon trying to build the standby by using RMAN DUPLICATE with ACTIVE DATABASE, I ran into the below error: executing Memory Script Starting backup at 16-JUL-18 RMAN-03009: failure of backup command on prm1 channel at 07/16/2018 13:51:46 ORA-17629: Cannot connect to the remote database server ORA-17630: Mismatch in the remote file protocol version client 2 server 3 continuing other job steps, job failed will not be re-run released channel: prm1 released channel: prm2 released channel: prm3 released channel: prm4 released channel: prm5 released channel: stb1 RMAN-00571: =========================================================== RMAN-00569: =============== ERROR MESSAGE STACK FOLLOWS =============== RMAN-00571: ====================
Read more

ORA-00338: log {n} of thread {n} is more recent than control file

I received the following error in a primary database's alert log that I was supporting recently.   ORA-00312: online log 5 thread 1: '+DATA/db_name/onlinelog/group_5.297.846947859' ORA-00338: log 5 of thread 1 is more recent than control file The database has a DataGuard environment as well and below are the steps that I took to resolve the issue. 1.  First, I checked the status of the redo logs and their current sizes and status. SQL> select group#,bytes/1024/1024,status from v$log;     GROUP# BYTES/1024/1024 STATUS ---------- --------------- ----------------          1              50 INACTIVE          2              50 INACTIVE          3              50 INACTIVE          4             250 INACTIVE          5             250 INACTIVE          6             250 CURRENT 2.  As you can see, groups 1, 2, 3 have 50 MB redo log group sizes while group 4, 5, 6 are 250 MB redo log group sizes.  This is something that I highly suspect was/is the issue.  So I
Read more