Xref: utzoo comp.databases:2104 comp.sys.hp:1662
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Corrupted database in Oracle
Keywords: Oracle HP-UX crash
Message-ID: <735@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 89 19:48:55 GMT
References: <115@geysir.os.is>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 31

In article <115@geysir.os.is>, eik@os.is (Einar Kjartansson) writes:
> 
> We have been using Oracle on HP 9000/840 computer for  about 3 months.
> During during this priod the database has become corrupted twice, 
> both times resulting in total loss of data....
     [extract from dump attempt]
> Connected to: ORACLE V5.1.22.2 - Production	
>  	 
> Exporting the entire data base...... 
>
> Oracle Error: ORA-0038: ksbgrb: incorrect table RBA in row block 
>  	 
> EXPORT terminated due to error 
> 
> Both times that this happened we ended up rebuilding the database from 
> backups, resulting in the loss of several days of work. 
> 
  I fail to understand how anyone can seriously consider purchasing a DBMS 
  that insists on "improving" performance by bypassing a given system's file
  management facility.  It's a cheap method for the vendor, but as the above
  has discovered, may be very expensive to the user.

  The problem may be user error, system glitch, or dbms error.  Regardless of
  which, the user is now faced with a big black box (a large extent of disk
  space known only as a huge "file" to the system) which is difficult to pene-
  trate with the usual system debugging tools and has to be overwritten in
  toto from backup.

  What did this user gain and was it really worth it, if (s)he did ?

   greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny