Can someone tell me about a bug in 10.2.0.1, which would cause excessive undo with heavy dml on
ASSM tablespaces? I found mention of this bug in a post dating back to 2006, but no number.

I think this bug would be a good reason for upgrading, an application used by my employer does
excessive dml, and until today, I didn't realize a more recent version could provide better
performance.

Any other reasons for leaving 10.2.0.1 behind are also very welcome. Should we go for 10.2.0.4
or 10.2.0.5 immediately?

Thanks,

Gerard

Gerard H. Pille wrote:

ah, on supporthtml.oracle.com, I found 3610777 and 4288876, but one thing bothers me, about the
fix for 4288876:

Note: The fix for this bug introduces a potentially serious
problem as described in bug 4597251. It is advisable
for any customer with a one off patch for this bug
(4288876) to replace it by the fix for bug 4597251 .

where there is talk of block corruption. I prefer lesser performance to block corruption.
Would I run this risk with one of the more recent versions?

On Sep 14, 11:26*am, "Gerard H. Pille" <g... (AT) skynet (DOT) be> wrote:
You'd run less risk on the recent versions than on the unpatched
version IMO, but there are still ASSM bugs. If you google assm
jonathan lewis you'll perhaps find posts about 10.2.0.4. Talk to
support about what you've found and see what they say. My guess is
these performance bugs mostly show up with high concurrency
situations, or the specific cases people like Charles Hooper have
posted about. I ran into one performance situation, made a note to
myself to investigate a one-off patch, then forgot about it until you
just reminded me. Corruption does tend to be more noticeable.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
I once got a round tu it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/joel_garry/799193214/

joel garry wrote:

Drop ASSM altogether?

On Sep 14, 2:11*pm, "Gerard H. Pille" <g... (AT) skynet (DOT) be> wrote:
10.2.0.1? Really?

I just have on 10.2 system left but it is over on solaris and ( not
used heavily ) and stable on 10.2.0.4.

I would think you want to look at 10.2.0.5 and research bugs on that
port to aix.

On Sep 15, 4:11*am, "Gerard H. Pille" <g... (AT) skynet (DOT) be> wrote:


Dunno about those two, but I'm running 10.2.0.3 patched up and it is
stable as a rock.
However, I am not using ASSM. Nor RAC. Aix 64-bit 5L.

On Sep 15, 11:45*am, Noons <wizofo... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Apologies: we ARE using ASSM. What we are not using is ASM. Darn
Oracle and their acronyms...

Nuno:

# Dunno about those two, but I'm running 10.2.0.3 patched up and it is
stable as a rock. However, I am not using ASSM. *Nor RAC. *Aix 64-bit
5L.

Just the 10.2.0.3 patchset? Or 10.2.0.3 patchset with various other
one offs? ( Sorry the "patched up" terminology not clear at least to
me ).

Any particular reason you have not gone past 10.2.0.3?

How about the CPUs and ( just more recently ) the PSUs?

Noons wrote:
I'd better check what they mean too.

Gerard H. Pille wrote:
Ok, ASSM is what I thought it was, Automatic Segment Space Misery.

All these features making the DBA obsolete, you think? All the time I spent trying to improve
the performance of this database, and only because of an ORA-01555 with a parallel query that I
was investigating, Google came up with this bug, and I realized this database ran a version
that's almost 4 years old. Losing my touch.