Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: 10g on Linux
Well, hell it wasn't me. :)
I gotta wonder what the reasoning is here. Most of the customers I deal wi= th have one reason for moving to 9i instead of 10g - ISV support. If you'r= e using an application which is either custom built or written by an ISV wi= th 10g support, why would you bother upgrading to 9i and then upgrading aga= in to 10g? That seems pretty damn stupid to me, particularly now the 10.1.= 0.3 patch is out (to satisfy those "I won't upgrade till the first patch re=lease" bigots ;).
=
Pete
=
"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
=
"Oh no, it's not. It's much harder than that!" Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] =
On Behalf Of Yechiel Adar
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2004 12:49 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: 10g on Linux
I talked with a technical person in Oracle and got the following response: I would not recommend moving production to 10g now. However, if you start a project that will be moved to production in about 9=
months, start it on 10g.
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Payton" <Ken.Payton_at_choicepointprg.net>
To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:00 AM
Subject: 10g on Linux
>
>
> I need to install Oracle on the below configuration. We have 20GB of =3D
> memory and are running the hugemem kernel. I would like to take =3D
> advantage of this as much as possible. We have already installed 10g =3D=
> and got it working with the huge memory footprint based on Oracle docs =3D=
> with little issue. No patching was required, although patches are =3D
> necessary for 9i. =3D20
>
> It is my recommendation to run 10g but would appreciate feedback in =3D
> regard to 10g vs 9i given this configuration. I have recommendation =3D
> against 10g in the past(on solaris), although I believe there is a =3D
> better case given this configuration. I believe 10g will be more =3D
> reliable based on the dedication Oracle has had to the Linux platform =3D=
> over the past two years, primarily while 10g has been developed. It is =3D=
> my understanding that Oracle is building on Linux first and then porting =
=3D
> to other OS's. Are there any thoughts out there about this? If anyone =3D=
> has any experiences they would like to share it would be much =3D
> appreciated. I am interested in both sides of the story, although =3D
> success stories would make me much happier.
>
> Overview
> - single instance (Non-RAC)
> - SAN attached SUN 3510 Disks
> - 2-4 TB database
> - HP DL740
> - 8 X 2.8 GHz Zion CPU's
> - 20GB RAM
> - Redhat AS 3.0 hugemem kernel
> Required feature set
> - heap/IOT tables
> - B-tree indexes
> - partitioning
> - transportable tablespaces
> - Huge Memory support (10+GB Buffer Cache)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Wed Aug 11 2004 - 10:42:41 CDT
![]() |
![]() |