Re: Building a 10gR1 RAC

Allan

We've run E-Business suite on 10.1.0.4 on rac on linux successfully for over 2 years. (it predates my joining 2 years ago). I'm only now plotting the upgrade because of the db support issue, and as a precursor to a possible 12 implementation/upgrade. I'd rather be on 10.2 but 10.1 works fine for us.

Niall
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Allan Nelson <anelson77388_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the defining text from the note.
>
>
> Oracle Applications Release 11*i* (11.5.10) has numerous configuration
> options that can be chosen to suit particular business scenarios, uptime
> requirements, hardware capability, and availability requirements. This
> document describes how to migrate Oracle Applications Release 11*i*(Release
> 11.5.10.2) running on a single database instance to a Real Application
> Clusters (RAC) environment running Oracle database server 10g Release 2 (
> 10.2.0.1) with Automatic Storage Management (ASM).
>
> Note the (Release 11.5.10.2) in the quoted text.
>
> We are making the change because we are currently on HP PA-RISC. HP is
> discontinuing the platform. Our hardware comes off lease August of 2009 so
> we have to go somewhere. HP has chosen to go with a new platform so we are
> going to explore x86. I guess based on the feedback I'm getting here I'll
> tell management that 10gR1 RAC is too risky.
>
> Allan
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris_at_dannorris.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Allan,
> >
> > I absolutely agree with Hemant--if you're making a significant change in
> > architecture, presumably it is due to a business requirement for some
> > better scalability and/or redundancy (HA) in the environment. If that
> > assumption is correct, you'd be very wise to pick a well-supported,
> > widely deployed release like 10g R2 instead of 10g R1. I think you'll
> > have a much better chance at success on 10g R2 and you'll certainly find
> > more helpful hints from mailing lists, forums, and (gasp) Oracle
> > Support.
> >
> > Having said all that, I'm not an Apps DBA, but from my novice reading of
> > section 1.2 in the note referenced below, I don't see the 11.5.10.2 is
> > required. Maybe 11.5.10.2 is disguised as some other name that is listed
> > there. The example that follows in section 2 does depict 11.5.10.2, but
> > that doesn't mean that the example is using the minimums. Regardless,
> > based on what little I know about apps, 11.5.10.2 does sound to be a
> > Good Thing all around and something you should consider if stability,
> > availability, and scalability are important to your business.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Hemant K Chitale wrote:
> > >
> > > Allan,
> > > See MetaLink Note#362135.1 titled
> > > "Configuring Oracle Applications Release 11i with 10g Release2 Real
> > > Application Clusters and Automatic Storage Management"
> > >
> > > You should be on 11.5.10.2 -- if you ARE taking the effort to go RAC,
> > > why not CU2 ?
> > > CU2 would be worth it.
> > >
> > > Hemant K Chitale
> >
>
>

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l