Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

RE: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

From: Guang Mei <>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:10:12 -0400
Message-ID: <>


Frankly, I agree with your DBA. Multiple versions of oracle version could run on the same server, but it creates lot of potential headache for DBAs. Unless you want to spend the time to fix the problem when they occur, I think your DBA has valid reasons to not allow this happen.

BTW, in the envirnments/companies I have worked on so far I always had one version of oracle running on one server.  

Best Regards,


-----Original Message-----

From: Tracy Rahmlow [] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

We are in the process of upgrading several databases from 8i on AIX 4.3.3 to 9 on AIX 5.2 or 10g on AIX 5.2. The target version depends upon whether or not the application is supported on 10g or not. If not will be migrating toward 9.
The manager of the unix area has indicated that he has seen issues at his previous shop with co-locating multiple versions of Oracle on the same server and is basically not allowing the practice. I have never seen or heard of this issue, but am trying to remain open-minded to his concern. Here are his statements verbatim:

Several occasions where server and db crashed due to dba administering db in an incorrect manner. IE mistook one version for the other. Applied the incorrect maintenance patch to the incorrect instance.

Several occasions where db versions did not play nice together 7.3.4 and 8i.

All occasions impacted SLA's and one instance required restore of db due to corrupt data.

I also contacted two DBA Manager friends and they are aware Oracle supports this strategy, however, both shops have standards in place that do not permit this practice - due primarily to the above incidents and to keep the environments simple / less complex. Does this make the planning of upgrades and maintenance a little more difficult - yes, but they both agreed that this best practice has solved many headaches and saved many hours of work.

Prior to his arrival we did have success running 7 and 8 on the same server. Frankly, I do not think the restriction is warranted. So what are your thoughts? And if you agree with me help me make a case for changing his mind. To complicate matters, he has more authority than me. Thanks

Tracy Rahmlow
The American Express Property Casualty companies 3500 Packerland Drive
DePere, Wisconsin 54115-9034
tel: 920-330-5164
fax: 920-330-5350
American Express made the following
 annotations on 04/05/05 07:58:11



"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."




This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.

-- Received on Tue Apr 05 2005 - 11:14:46 CDT

Original text of this message