Re: 9iAS Version 9.0.2.0.1 OC4J and OPMN Problems

From: Peter Sylvester <peters_at_mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:43:49 -0400
Message-ID: <al7u3l$gis$1@newslocal.mitre.org>

I have installed 902 on a Solaris server that was already running another Oracle 8.1.7 database.

The only issues were that I had to move the 8.1.7 listener to a different port, and give it a different name (i.e. LISTENER_817), and had to crank up some parameters in /etc/system. You also need a "local_listener" entry in the 8.1.7 init.ora to tell it the non-standard listener address, so it can register when it starts up.

--Peter

Karin wrote:

> unknown <nobody_at_blackhole.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.09.04.18.11.14.600765.1817_at_blackhole.nospam.com>...
> 

>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:11:56 +0200, Karin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi all together,
>>>We just installed the newest version of 9iAS. The installation didn't
>>>cause problems. Everything looks to be okay. But when the configuration
>>>assistant started we got problems. The configuration assistant for the
>>>OC4J instance and the OPMN failed. It said, that 6 of 7 processes could
>>>only be started. During this configuration the /var/tmp directory
>>>increased heavily. We decided to go on with the SDK installation,
>>>because we thought, that we could configure these two components later.
>>>But that was not the case. So we rebooted the server and tried to
>>>startup everything manual using a startup guide from Oracle. But we
>>>cannot get the d... thing up again. Does anybody had similar problems?
>>>If yes, could you fixed them and how? We are using HP/UX 11.0 on an
>>>A-Class server. Thanks for all help. Cheers,
>>>Karin
>>
>>I have seen that, albeit on Linux. Invariably, on Linux this meant that I
>>had failed to comply with all the required prerequisite steps (kernel
>>parms, binutils, etc.).
>>
>>Are you using the new, patched version or the old version when you had to
>>patch the infrastructure database youself?

> 
> 
> 
> We are using the newest version, where the patches are included. I
> also opened a thread in Metalink. There I got told, that there should
> be no other Oracle products on the server. On our server there is an
> Oracle 8.1.7 Database..... :-(
> 
> Cheers,
> Karin
 

Received on Thu Sep 05 2002 - 10:43:49 CDT