Re: Oracle does it again

#11

On Feb 27, 7:29*pm, John Hurley <johnbhur... (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 27, 6:34*pm, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

On the other hand, we are considering moving our central oracle DB to
version 11g. There are several features that appeal to us. This project
was to establish how hard would it be to upgrade from Oracle 10.2.0.4 to
Oracle 11.2.0.1. So far, the result is a sheer disaster and I advised my
CIO to wait for the next version.

All my systems ( except one ... running 10.2.0.4 on solaris ) are
running now on 11.1.0.7.1 ( linux ) and stable.

No RAC anywhere.

Is scan associated with Grid Control or another feature? If it is
Grid Control you might want to check the following as it seems to
indicate that 5 IP addresses are required. I would hate for you to
have to ask for one IP and then have to right back and ask for
another.

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E...t.htm#sthref96

I have a friend who I am pretty sure runs 11g RAC on Linux and the
last I talked to him his site is not experiencing any RAC related
problems. From what I have heard 11g RAC is no worse, problem wise,
than 10g RAC or 9.2 RAC.

Good Luck.
Mark D Powell

#12

Mladen Gogala wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:29:48 -0800, John Hurley wrote:

All my systems ( except one ... running 10.2.0.4 on solaris ) are
running now on 11.1.0.7.1 ( linux ) and stable.

No RAC anywhere.

If you discount RAC and use available components like Tomcat, JBoss,
and EJB, there is very little that Oracle 11G can do and significantly
cheaper 3rd party cannot do. The way I see things, RAC is the only
thing that Oracle does have and the competition does not have.
However, with partitioning, RAC, diagnostic & tuning pack, Oracle
license costs as much as $50000/CPU and that is a heck of a steep
price. In my opinion, if you want to load 40 tons of something and
drive it for 100 miles, you need an 18-wheeler. If you need to your
local store and buy a weekly supply of food & drink for your home,
you can probably get away with a significantly smaller vehicle. The
very same principle of the right tool for the right job applies here.
Other databases are getting better and better and they can do more
and more. One needs Oracle RDBMS only to do the heavy lifting,
smaller stuff can be done by other databases. RAC is the only reason
to go for Oracle RDBMS and not for something much, much cheaper like
DB2, SQL*Server or Postgres. I am keeping an eye on Windows 7, if
that proves to be a good and scalable OS and if Microsoft improves
the OLTP capabilities of the SQL*Server, who knows, things may still
go the Microsoft way. Postgres is also very potent open source DB,
perfectly sufficient for the HR department of a medium size company.
However, if one needs 24x7 client-facing robust OLTP database which
has to have a near 99.99% uptime, and the ability to support hundreds
of users, one still needs Oracle RAC.

Well, DB2 for zOS has its Sysplex architecture.
And DB2 for LUW has DPF and since october 2009: DB2 pureScale.
In case you're really interested, here's some pointers:

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/...purescale.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-63845227.html
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database...lly-over-34681
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/db2luw/i...scaleout-34920
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/db2luw/d...y-part-1-35173
http://www.devwebsphere.com/devwebsp...it-better.html

--
Jeroen

#13

Mladen Gogala wrote,on my timestamp of 28/02/2010 12:12 PM:

Quote:

for the right job applies here. Other databases are getting better and
better and they can do more and more. One needs Oracle RDBMS only to do
the heavy lifting, smaller stuff can be done by other databases. RAC is
the only reason to go for Oracle RDBMS and not for something much, much

Where I work:

- Oracle dbs: 3, with development instances.
- Non-Oracle, mostly SQL Server: 9, with 3 additional development.
That's after consolidation: previously we had 6 Oracle and >35 SQL Server.

Need I say more?

I just have to laugh when the Oracle reps come in and ask if I'm using grid to
"manage *all* my Oracle dbs"....

#14

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:50:26 +1100, Noons wrote:

Quote:

Where I work:

- Oracle dbs: 3, with development instances. - Non-Oracle, mostly SQL
Server: 9, with 3 additional development. That's after consolidation:
previously we had 6 Oracle and >35 SQL Server.

Need I say more?

No, that's precisely what I see where I work. Oracle brought this upon
themselves. That's the trend: ditching as many Oracle licenses as you
can, because they're so exorbitantly expensive.

--
http://mgogala.freehostia.com

#15

On 28.02.2010 02:25, Mark D Powell wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 27, 7:29 pm, John Hurley <johnbhur... (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:34 pm, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

On the other hand, we are considering moving our central oracle DB to
version 11g. There are several features that appeal to us. This project
was to establish how hard would it be to upgrade from Oracle 10.2.0.4 to
Oracle 11.2.0.1. So far, the result is a sheer disaster and I advised my
CIO to wait for the next version.
All my systems ( except one ... running 10.2.0.4 on solaris ) are
running now on 11.1.0.7.1 ( linux ) and stable.

No RAC anywhere.

Is scan associated with Grid Control or another feature? If it is
Grid Control you might want to check the following as it seems to
indicate that 5 IP addresses are required. I would hate for you to
have to ask for one IP and then have to right back and ask for
another.

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E...t.htm#sthref96

I have a friend who I am pretty sure runs 11g RAC on Linux and the
last I talked to him his site is not experiencing any RAC related
problems. From what I have heard 11g RAC is no worse, problem wise,
than 10g RAC or 9.2 RAC.

How did he set up the system? IIRC Mladen's problems were mainly with
upgrading 10 to 11 - not so much running 11 or installing from scratch.

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

#16

On Mar 1, 3:39*pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

Quote:

I have a friend who I am pretty sure runs 11g RAC on Linux and the
last I talked to him his site is not experiencing any RAC related
problems. *From what I have heard 11g RAC is no worse, problem wise,
than 10g RAC or 9.2 RAC.

That's about what I have heard. You don't run RAC systems without
expecting complications and a big requirement to have available
expertise 24 x 7 ... or at least you don't run them well.

Quote:

How did he set up the system? *IIRC Mladen's problems were mainly with
upgrading 10 to 11 - not so much running 11 or installing from scratch.

If I understand him correctly ( and at times he does not always seem
like he wants to put all his cards on the table ) it was some kind of
special test system running RAC one node.

Not that those types of systems should have big problems in an upgrade
but that's a pretty atypical setup from a normal RAC system. Could
Oracle have missed doing some testing of upgrades for systems like
that?

These days it seems like Oracle has problems testing almost anything!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: Oracle does it again

comp.databases.oracle.server comp.databases.oracle.server

Re: Oracle does it again - 02-27-2010 , 07:25 PM

Re: Oracle does it again - 02-27-2010 , 08:44 PM

Re: Oracle does it again - 02-28-2010 , 04:50 AM

Re: Oracle does it again - 02-28-2010 , 12:30 PM

Re: Oracle does it again - 03-01-2010 , 02:39 PM

Re: Oracle does it again - 03-01-2010 , 04:47 PM