Re: Building a 10gR1 RAC

Thanks to everyone who replied. I have also talked with some other people off the list and it appears there may be some CRS patches for release 10gR1 that may help with some fencing issues. I will check with support. My CIO was the one that made the decision that CU2 wasn't worth the cost and it has been argued enough that it is a sore subject.

Allan

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Niall Litchfield < niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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