On Mar 4, 4:58*am, joel garry <joel-ga... (AT) home (DOT) com> wrote:


Not really. If you look at the SR entry process, the basics of
information are all there: type of licence, release number and patch
level, OS/hardware. And the ability to load trace files and other
supporting evidence. As well as clear instructions asking if possible
to provide a simplified reproducible case. That's a heap more than
the usual Usenet "help" entry and has served well before, why would it
not be effective now?


And not needed. That is the problem.


I disagree. Support is not reducible to a mechanized, half-arsed
pseudo-AI tool cobbled together from past information. Each release
of Oracle has its own problems with new features - as well as a fair
share of others that are common with previous releases - most
unfortunately, but it's a fact! Any attempt to automate analysis of
SRs in such a climate is doomed to even more overhead, while still
needing specialist work. The notion that every SR can be analyzed
upfront by such a tool is doomed, like so many other prior attempts at
the same: nothing new here, it's not even a new idea. Tried before,
never worked, never will: software is not some immutable universe
definable by a static rule set.


Not at all. Ora-600 is an internal error in Oracle code. Period.
What causes it may be a simple command in sqlplus, or a very complex
chain of events starting with the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in
China. It still is an internal error in Oracle kernel code and needs
to be treated as such. Forget the rest: it's got nothing to do with
geography or entomology!


Sure. And how/where is OCM going to help there?


I wish... I've hit 13 of them in the last year alone...


I don't have a problem with a tool that collects basic information
*about Oracle configuration*. Like hell I'm gonna let lose a tool in
my servers that collects information about the network itself, its
setup and most secure information. Read on about the arp command,
present in any pc although few know what it can do.
No way it's gonna happen. Period.

On Mar 4, 5:23*am, John Hurley <johnbhur... (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:

John, please! I am *fully* aware of how OCM can be run: I installed
and examined it AGES ago. It is a viral tool. It has no place ANYWHERE
in a modern data centre. Period.

I am not even remotely interested in wasting my time filtering what is
sent to Oracle: my employer doesn't pay me to do Oracle's work. Is
that clear?


Guess what: we are the paying client of a service, we make the rules.
Basic law of business, as well as common law.
Oracle better not forget that...


You bet. And I can also make my next support payment dependent on
Oracle changing their attitude.

On Mar 4, 12:52*am, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Oh, the OUG has stopped being minimally relevant years ago. Once it
was opened to control by external parties to peddle their wares and
services instead of being run by users, the end of its usefulness was
obvious.
Only fools who thought it was a "great marketing avenue" kept showing
up: real users left years ago.
We formed a new dba one last year and it's been a success, with
relevant matters being discussed and frequent meetings. Much more
useful. Thank Pythian for that.
Of course Oracle hasn't even offered to help, although their folks
seem to be keen to show up and eat pizza at our expense...


That one is such a customer relations disaster! I wonder who is the
genius that thought that one up and if he/she has been called to
explain the outcome.
But knowing how things work in big corporations, probably a VP by
now...


Ah well: not just you, I'm sure...

On Mar 3, 1:50*pm, Noons <wizofo... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
(Note for lurkers, I agree with pretty much everything Noons said
besides the following)

Not hardly. There are presumptions there of equal footing that just
don't apply. It seems apparent Oracle is well aware they can simply
wear down anyone who starts chest-thumping about lawsuits. They
_should_ treat us as though we make the rules, but google "fire your
customers" which is making the rounds again thanks to Seth Godin.
More realistically, there are just so many customers that a few
squeaks are a cost of doing business. Dropped penny? More like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYYe87b9w

As Rocky would say to Bullwinkle "that trick never works." Bullwinkle
usually pulls out something like
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F3F2-KgbhT..._magic-hat.jpg

But I suppose it's a nice dream.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
The $29M Captcha challenge:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...KD30AD9E64CGG1

On Mar 3, 4:50*pm, Noons <wizofo... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

Chill dude. Your posting here made it a little unclear to me at least
what you were aware of here.

You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
keeps updating it.

About the only choices that we have here is how we configure it ... if
we configure it ... and if we use it ... how we use it.

If your employer pays you to support Oracle databases then anything
relevant to Oracle support probably comes under your discretion in
some regard. What you choose to do is obviously up to you.

Maybe we don't speak the same language apparently.

I don't see anyone here arguing against the idea that we don't like
what has been forced on us.

The unfortunate situation is that Oracle customers need a support
contract to be able to download patches/patchset updates/patchsets
along with new releases etc.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:51:37 -0800, John Hurley wrote:

Actually, you do. I consistently refuse to give it my CSI.



--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

On Mar 4, 7:53*am, Mladen Gogala <n... (AT) email (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:
That's not good enough. It still keeps running and trying to call
home by default. Just 'cause it doesn't succeed doesn't mean you
don't have to actively configure it to turn it off. So have you
figured out all the things it is doing and all the resources it is
taking up? (That's the editorial ranting you, not you in particular).

From the readme:

------------------------------------ begin inclusion

Enabling/Disabling collection of IP and MAC addresses:
-----------------------------------------------------

With the 10.2.5.0.0 release of Oracle Configuration Manager, the user
now
has the ability to disable the collection of specific configuration
items. The
only two configuration items that can be disabled are the collection
of the
host IP address and the Network Interface MAC accress. By default,
these
configuration items are collected.

To disable their collection, add a property to the
collector.properties file
in $ORACLE_HOME/ccr/config.

Add the following line to disable the collection of the host IP
address:

ccr.metric.host.ecm_hw_nic.inet_address=false

Add the following line to disable the Network Interface MAC address
collection:

ccr.metric.host.ecm_hw_nic.mac_address=false

The metric(s) are re-enabled by removing the corresponding line from
the
collector.properties file.

------------------------------------ End inclusion

Did not giving the CSI prevent /oracle/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/
ccr/config/default/targets.xml from having your hostname? Have you
checked where ccr.endpoint points to in ccr.properties? (If I were a
bad guy, perhaps that's where I'd go to make your system give me your
information. If I knew how it worked). How about those funnily named
xml files in ccr/state?

find $ORACLE_HOME/ccr -exec grep -l db_users {} \; -exec ll {} \;

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Well, Oracle me to tears! http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2009/06...ill-oracle-you

On Mar 4, 10:53*am, Mladen Gogala <n... (AT) email (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:

snip

Ummm that's the configuring part and using it part ... not the
installing part.

On Mar 4, 11:41*am, joel garry <joel-ga... (AT) home (DOT) com> wrote:


Interesting concept. And one of the many reasons why we ghave a GFC
that everyone knows how to correct and yet no one has been able to
fix. Somewhere in all that there is an element of reality missing...

Yeah, I know. But no matter how many companies Oracle buys to offset
the lack of growth in DB business, there will be soon a day where
reality will catch up.



LOL!

One that'll cost them a coupla hundred grand a year.
And that's just one customer...

On Mar 5, 12:51*am, John Hurley <johnbhur... (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:

You are right: sorry. Chilled.


Wanna bet?
$cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
ksh: /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr: not found.
$

qed.

One of the reasons why I spent a few months looking into it.
Initially with the best of intentions, but as I learned more and more
of what it does, with the single intention of disabling it once and
for all.


Exactly. I chose to let Oracle support do their work, not me.
There is a marked difference between supporting a database that
happens to use Oracle software and supporting Oracle software: the two
are far from interchangeable.


Oracle used to sell separate upgrade licensing and support licensing,
back in the pre-6 days.
Guess why they bundled both into a single licence?
I wonder if anyone ever tested the legality under common law of them
doing so...