Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
mdiver
Veeam Legend
Posts: 201
Liked: 33 times
Joined: Nov 04, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Contact:

Job with Oracle log truncation skips truncation claiming another log shipping job is active - but is not

Post by mdiver »

VMs with Oracle DBs to be log-shipped as well as log-truncated were consolidated from single-VM jobs to one job with 10 Oracle VMs inside.
The source jobs were disabled and it was waited until they discontinued the child process for log-shipping.

Now in the new job all the VMs are correctly backed up. Though the log-truncation fails, claiming all the other (old) jobs would still be active with log shipping. But they are definitely not.
How can this status be cleared? We already rebootet the VBR server as well as the workload VMs.

Support case is open (#04857826). Supporter says we should wait a few days, it'll clear itself automatically.
But we cannot do that as the log partitions fill quickly.

Thanks and regards,
Mike
Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 14417
Liked: 1576 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Job with Oracle log truncation skips truncation claiming another log shipping job is active - but is not

Post by Dima P. »

Hello Mike,

Let me check with the QA folks. Stay tuned.
Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 14417
Liked: 1576 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Job with Oracle log truncation skips truncation claiming another log shipping job is active - but is not

Post by Dima P. »

mdiver,

Can you please clarify if the log shipping was disabled in the old job (or you just disabled the job without turning the oracle log processing off)? Thanks!
mdiver
Veeam Legend
Posts: 201
Liked: 33 times
Joined: Nov 04, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Job with Oracle log truncation skips truncation claiming another log shipping job is active - but is not

Post by mdiver » 1 person likes this post

Only the job was disabled and the process disappeared. Internally the setting was still there. I wouldn't have expected that to interfere though.

After having deleted the old job, it worked as expected.
So even a disabled job seems to interfere.

Case was closed.

Thanks,
Mike
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 110 guests