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: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:21:57 +0100
Message-ID: <3D730671F3FB8C4EA73FD2E94A11F94703AECA@tshuklonmbx02.ERF.THOMSON.COM>

I agree with other posters on this subject. I would tend to not having = Oracle 7,8 and 9 on the same box because here we use the OMS to monitor = the databases and this leads to issues with the dbsnmp and the fact the = 9i will not talk to 7.



-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Tracy Rahmlow Sent: 05 April 2005 15:55
Subject: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

We are in the process of upgrading several databases from 8i on AIX = 4.3.3=20
to 9 on AIX 5.2 or 10g on AIX 5.2. The target version depends upon=20 whether or not the application is supported on 10g or not. If not will = be=20
migrating toward 9.
The manager of the unix area has indicated that he has seen issues at = his=20
previous shop with co-locating multiple versions of Oracle on the same=20 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=20
in an incorrect manner. IE mistook one version for the other. Applied=20 the incorrect maintenance patch to the incorrect instance.

Several occasions where db versions did not play nice together 7.3.4 and =


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=20 supports this strategy, however, both shops have standards in place that =

do not permit this practice - due primarily to the above incidents and = to=20
keep the environments simple / less complex. Does this make the = planning=20
of upgrades and maintenance a little more difficult - yes, but they both =

agreed that this best practice has solved many headaches and saved many=20 hours of work.

Prior to his arrival we did have success running 7 and 8 on the same=20 server. Frankly, I do not think the restriction is warranted. So what=20 are your thoughts? And if you agree with me help me make a case for=20 changing his mind. To complicate matters, he has more authority than = me.=20

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."


Received on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 12:27:13 CDT

Original text of this message