Skip to Main Content

Oracle Database Discussions

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback about Oracle Forums, please email oracle-forums-moderators_us@oracle.com. Technical questions should be asked in the appropriate category. Thank you!

ORA-27102 SVR4 Error: 12: Not enough space

lrpJun 1 2009 — edited Apr 1 2010
Our Oracle 11.1.0.7 database is running on Solaris 10 / Sunfire hardware. Unfortunately, we've been seeing our database crash and corrupt a datafile in the process several times. The key alert log message is below (which I've blanked out some info for security purposes):
KCF: write/open error block=0xbc28 online=1
file=6 /***************.dbf
error=27063 txt: 'SVR4 Error: 12: Not enough space
Additional information: -1
Additional information: 8192'

KCF: write/open error block=0x1571 online=1
file=57 *************.dbf
error=27063 txt: 'SVR4 Error: 12: Not enough space
Additional information: -1
Additional information: 8192'
Automatic datafile offline due to write error on
file 57: ***********.dbf
I've already done a forum search for the error codes but couldn't find any other post that matched my exact situation/code. The key coincidence here is that the number 8192 matches a value in my ulimit (stack size). Below is what I would currently see as my oracle user:
ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
open files (-n) 256
pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 10
stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192  <-------------
cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes (-u) 29995
virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
Oracle's documentation doesn't give me much information on what ORA-27063 means. Does anybody else know how Oracle reports 'Error 12:" codes coming from the OS? What the "additional information: -1" or "additional information: 8192" means? I need this in my troubleshooting so we can measure and adjust the correct resource, instead of blindly increasing stack size or other resource parameters on the OS.

Comments

EJP
I'm inclined to agree with the Java 7 compiler here. Did you really mean to put S and T back to front in the specification of T?
955312
As name of the class says it's strange one...
It's just stupid example - more interesting is change of compiler behavior...
If it should not compile why is it compiling under java 6?
gimbal2
Answer
Because they're two separate things? Java 7 is NOT simply an "upgrade" from Java 6, its a new platform. Therefore things can and will be different.

Might in this case simply be that a bug in the compiler was plugged though.
Marked as Answer by 955312 · Sep 27 2020
955312
Thank you for answer.
1 - 4
Locked Post
New comments cannot be posted to this locked post.

Post Details

Locked on Apr 29 2010
Added on Jun 1 2009
23 comments
17,077 views