OPMN Process Manager failed to start - libmodapi.so libclntsh.so not found

Question

Hi all,
I am completely new to Oracle in its entirety. I am trying to install Oracle Enterprise Manager Grid Console 10.2.0.1.0 on Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.1 through the OUI using the new database install. When I get to setting up the Oracle Application Server, it tells me the OPMN Process Manager failed to start, tells me to check the logs in /oms10g/opmn/logs, and to start OPMN manually before hitting retry.
The log files in that directory do not seem to contain any errors.
When I run ./opmnctl stopall, ./opmnctl startall, ./opmnctl status, I get no obvious errors, and then the following:
DSA ~ DSA ~ Down
HTTP_Server ~ HTTPServer ~ Alive
LogLoader ~ logloaderd ~ Down
dcm-daemon ~ dcm-daemon ~ Down
OC4J ~ home ~ Alive
WebCache ~ WebCache ~ Alive
WebCache ~ WebCacheAdmin ~ Alive
When I do ./opmn start I get the following:
./opmn: error while loading shared libraries: libmodapi.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
When I do a ldd ./opmn I get the following errors:
libmodapi.so => not found
libclntsh.so.10.1 => not found
I am assuming my problem is that these two libraries are not linked in. I have looked through the forums, and found closely related threads, but none that seemed to help, most notably changing my PATH. If anyone has any suggestions, I would welcome them. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Don

Answer 1

Hi All,
We all agree that best practice involves a test installation. My original post was about a problem I was having with the creation of my test bed. I did create my own manual, which I am sure is not the best manual ever created, but does work to get the software installed. If it is proven out, I will post it to try and return something to the community.
In order to do this, I needed to read thousands of pages of documentation so far, which does not even scratch the surface of the total amount on OTN. I am still revising my instructions as I find that the documentation commonly assumes the reader has been installing Oracle for some time and is fully aware of all the appropriate acronyms and the entire logical and physical structure of the database. In order to just read many of the documents, I had to draw out a map of Oracle on a whiteboard as I went. As a systems administrator, should I have to search through all those papers, manuals, the web, etc. and try to gain an advanced DBA understanding to get a working default installation? Perhaps it seems like I am just a new user who is whining, but how many programs can you think of where this type of effort is required?
In looking at the relationship between the DBA and the Systems Administrator, where should we draw a line between their tasks?
Should the DBA have to learn how to assess appropriate server hardware, and then install and administrate every flavor of Windows, UNIX, Linux, etc. in any given environment? Should a DBA be required to build a Linux kernel, configure Active Directory, or install Solaris before installing Oracle?
Should the Systems Administrator have to learn the nuances of installing and optimizing Oracle databases in order to just put the base software on the system and configure the kernel so it is ready for a DBA?
More interesting, as stated above, I could hand you the Gentoo Handbook, and without knowing a single thing about Gentoo Linux, you would have a default installation of the Gentoo OS. You could also grab step-by-step instructions for a default installation of MySQL on Gentoo, or a myriad of other programs, for that matter. This would hardly replace the Gentoo systems administrator or MySQL DBA, but it does serve a very valid purpose of enabling the systems administrator and DBA. Shouldn’t Oracle have something similar?
I would think the Systems Administrator knowledgeable in the OS and Kernel should be able to perform the first half of the installation task where they are more likely to be an expert, and then allow the DBA to create and optimize the databases they install, which they in turn can spend years learning how to do. Time that the DBA spends learning the OS or time the Systems Administrator spends learning Oracle is valuable in the long run, but it is also extra time to get the initial database up and running. One of the largest reasons IT personnel exist at all is to keep users from having to spend too much time learning about their computers to get their work done. Shouldn’t this also translate between IT groups?
Databases are one of the few software installations that systems administrators commonly don't have to maintain on corporate servers. The best comparison I know of is web services. In this manner web servers are very similar, and are commonly installed by a team as well. I am perfectly capable of creating a default install of Apache, Tomcat, or IIS from step-by-step instructions provided by Apache or Microsoft without much more tailored information than the IP address and system name we are going to use to fill in the blanks during the installation.
While I have performed the role of sole IT staff at a small software engineering company, and have therefore been the SysNetWebSecDB admin hydra in the past, in larger companies there seems to be no problem with having the system administrator create a default installation of Apache or IIS, having the network team configure the switches and DMZ, and having the web team customize the server and design the site without each of them having to know everything.
So the above is a good idea and I would encourage
them to do it because after that, it makes them
stonger than when they use an already completed one
to install.Sometimes there is time to sit down and read all the instructions and become a more robust IT professional. Sometimes there is only time to read the Getting Started section and you have to read the full instructions and optimize later if there is time. Sometimes you have outside influences that mean it has to get done in less time than it should, whether or not the justification for rushing is reasonable.
Should I plan to read every knowledge base article ever published by Microsoft in order to create a test bed installation of Windows 2008? Honestly, I’d still be reading the NT4 docs.
Not only does not every business have a DBA, or the money to hire one, sometimes the business does not want to do so, or sometimes the security is such that the DBA is not part of the unit allowed to utilize administrative access on the servers. That doesn’t mean they don’t need a database tomorrow.
As an IT professional, I will never be able to come close to encompassing the amount of knowledge I actually could use to do my job. I try to specialize in a few areas so that I have the ability to keep up with the exponential rate of IT expansion, but I basically consider a vast part of my job being constantly thrown into the deep end, and, fair or not, getting things done anyway. Hopefully that makes me good at my job. The question is how much time and effort I should need to apply before I can get to a reasonable starting point where everyone else can do their work too.
There
is normally no single document to achieve or complete
and installation unless the bespoke type. Apart from
the Install Guide, there could be Readme, Release
notes, Adendum etc. While I noted in a previous post that I shouldn't be too hard on Oracle in trying to document such a massive effort, that doesn’t mean that their documentation doesn’t need work. Why is the documentation for a single product spread out over tens of thousands of pages? It should be obvious that this has resulted in redundant and often conflicting documents, including the dozen readme documents in the installation files, the readme documents in the installed files, the install guide, the readme and addendum for each of those, the release notes for each of those, and a new set for each patch.
Obviously, for any installation, I need to complete a document for my own environment that contains the proper network configuration for our own LAN, or the proper partitioning. I do this for any program. Oracle needs me to change the name of the OS install to get their installer not to error out on their own OS. If OFA is so desirable, why not make the default install explain and follow OFA? Basic issues like this are highly avoidable, and shouldn’t be seen by the end user, even if in this case the end user is a highly technical audience capable of adjusting.
It will hard to get a single document because they
will be platform dependent and what someone did in
their install, may not always work everywhere.Again, please note that Oracle has "released" an OS that they intend for people to use on their Oracle validated hardware as a premier platform for their Oracle database. It isn't a stretch to feel that Oracle should then be able to provide valid, step-by-step instructions for a default installation of their own software, on validated hardware, on their own OS. I’m not expecting an optimized and populated database, but if the hardware, OS, and software are all under Oracle’s control, there aren’t really any variables other than machine name and IP address for a default install.
Hopefully my current knowledge will work for the time being, and I will be able to optimize appropriately in the future as I can.