We upgraded to 11.6.1 last weekend and seeing very interesting stuff while doing
prorest $DBNAME $TAPEDRIVE -verbose
Start of restoring the target DB... (9433) restore: 15:55:38 Estimate 0 hours 1 minutes more processing 838 Percent complete. restore: 15:56:38 Estimate 0 hours 1 minutes more processing 2019 Percent complete.
restore: 16:42:38 Estimate 0 hours -46 minutes more processing -6000 Percent complete. restore: 16:43:38 Estimate 0 hours -42 minutes more processing -4512 Percent complete.
Go figure how much time is left :)
IBM AIX OE 11.6.1
P.S. I have been restoring this database more than 100 times in 10.2B. Never seen anything like that. The restore should take 4 hours, so not a problem for me to do the math.
Restore successfully finished after negative 5 hours and negative 14 minutes with negative 18856 Percent complete.
restore: 20:50:44 Estimate -5 hours -14 minutes more processing -18856 Percent complete.
Read 162225707 db blocks in 07:25:34
If you can spare some of that negative time - send it my way! :)
Since OE now has successfully conquered time travel and we can restore a database into the past, it will make sales projections much more realistic and required inventory needs a snap. ;-)
This phenomenon does not happen on a small database. It should be big enough. Mine is 1.3 TB and constantly getting negative numbers. In other words one could not see it with sports db.
> restore: 15:07:47 Estimate -1 hours -38 minutes more processing 26493 Percent complete.
Does anyone know if that ( prorest -verbose ) bug is fixed in 11.7 ? It should be very easy fix I think.
Yes, it has been fixed.
Thank you Rich.
Today I noticed one more thing in 11.6.1 when restoring backup DBUTIL produces a very interesting version of Progress
[2017/01/03@22:36:20.022-0500] P-63504820 T-1 I DBUTIL : (16865) Restoring a version 0xc1 backup.
This value has been a hex representation of the backup version stored in the backup header for a very long time (since OE 11.3). It is not considered a bug. I guess it should have been made something more user friendly from the beginning.
How strongly do you feel this should be changed? Does an integer value really provide any better information?
>How strongly do you feel this should be changed?
That is very minor issue. I am sure you have much more important things to do.
Since it is internal usage -- integer 193 will not tell me much more than hex 0xc1.
Today we upgraded to 11.7.1 and I confirm that the issue with negative estimated time of restore is fixed. Thank you.