Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> 7.3.4 and 8.1.6 on same machine

7.3.4 and 8.1.6 on same machine

From: Christine Turner <>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:51:54 -0000
Message-Id: <>

Anyone have any ideas\situations\comments about 7.3.4 and 8.1.6 being on the same machine? Is it possible???

Christine Turner
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

 From: "Kamalakannan, D (CAP, GCF)" <>  Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:56:05 +0200
 Subject: RE: Oracle on NT over IPX

What are the Entries in Tnsnames.ora say -did they point your service name to IPX otherwise make your service name use IPX instead of TCP. I hope this helps.


-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Magno [] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:19 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Oracle on NT over IPX


 I have an enviroment with one Oracle Server version 8.1.6 on a NT Server (version 4.0 and SP 6a) using the protocol IPX, I configured the listener locally to connect via IPX and it worked fine, so I tried to connect to the Oracle via ODBC on other NT machine over the protocol IPX, but the machine does not connect to the database (I could map a directory from the NT machine, so the protocol is working fine). I tried to use the command tsnping but it doesnīt work, it stay "Attemptin to connect...", with no answer. I instaled SAP Agent and the Gateway Services for Netware, but nothing changed, Does anybody have experience with this installation and configuration just using IPX and NT (I donīt have any Novell server on my enviroment) ?


Carlos Magno

Author: Carlos Magno

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).


 From: Gaja Krishna Vaidyanatha <>
 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
 Subject: RE: data block waits

Hi Steve,

Well, I guess then I was then totally wrong in thinking that the
"e-mails" that ensued after our initial discussion on the list
in 1998, did clarify it.  I remember your e-mails, asking me
about the "source" of my information (because you "thought" I
was wrong) about the master and process freelists, and the
overhead the access pattern it posed.  I did divulge the source
and had further discussions about it.

My thinking was that, once we had established the "source" of
the information and it's credibility, we had agreed on the
"facts of disagreement".  But, obviously we have not.

I think it is OK for us to disagree on this and anything else,
as we are two individuals with varying backgrounds and
experiences.  I have my "production experience", you have your
"lab tests", and I can definitely "agree to differ"...;-)

Peace & Goodwill,


--- Steve Adams <> wrote:

> Hi Gaja,
> Yes, I do still have that old thread, and in fact we dropped
> it without reaching
> any agreement.
> On Wednesday, 21 October 1998 9:20, I disagreed with your
> claim about the cost
> of multiple process freelists and freelist groups as follows.
> "There is no CPU
> cost to having multiple process free lists, and a trivial cost
> to having
> multiple free list groups. If you have an inordinate number of
> process free
> lists the worst you get is more free space below the HWM that
> is not accessible
> to any particular process. You also get a lower limit on the
Received on Fri Sep 01 2000 - 04:51:54 CDT

Original text of this message