>> Stefan Heymann wrote:
>>
>>> Generation 4503107
>>> Oldest transaction 1582359
>>> Oldest active 4503099
>>> Oldest snapshot 4503099
>>> Next transaction 4503100
>
> At 04:29 AM 27/11/2007, Ann W. Harrison wrote:
>
>> With a shared server on a modern
>> machine, a few thousand bytes here or there is no big deal.

Helen Borrie wrote:

> A gap of almost 4 million transactions is a bit more than "a few thousand bytes here or there", methinks. ;-)

OK, ~3 million / 8 bits per byte = 365KB, approx 1/3 of a meg. Yes,
that's considerably more than a few thousand bytes.

>> A pass with sweep should fix it.
>
> Hopefully; but I'd want to keep an eye on it, suspecting that there are apps running that are doing lots of soft commits and not many (if any) hard commits...
>

Right. I don't know why an automatic sweep isn't correcting the
problem. Commit retaining would hold up the oldest active, which
seems to be moving right along. A limbo transaction is possible.

Best regards,

Ann