Re: Multiple listeners (9i/10g) on Windows

From: Tony Sequeira <>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:55:43 +0000
Message-Id: <1207140943.4714.43.camel@comet.sequestor.lan>

Thanks Dan,

Thanks for your comments.

If I do decide to use the 10g listener for both instances, won't there will be a service name clash, unless of course I use a different listener name? I would have to remove the 9i service prior to creating the 10g service, am I wrong here?

These databases are application bound, and it's unlikely the old one (9.0.1!) will ever be upgraded. It's not one we support, though the 10g one will be.


On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 07:43 -0500, Dan Norris wrote:
> Tony,
> You don't have to create the listener before creating the 10g
> database(s). You will need to create a new listener at some point and
> have it use a different port than the existing 9i listener. Assuming
> that the 9i listener is on the default port, you will need to assign the
> local_listener parameter for any instances that will *not* be using the
> listener on the default port.
> The main gotchas are that some "power" users may assume that the port is
> always 1521 and it is likely not 1521 for these new 10g databases.
> I agree that you should have one listener and it should be the latest
> version you have installed. In this case, I think the risk of using the
> 10g listener to service the 9i and 10g databases on the machine is very
> low and many others have done that successfully. The disruption to users
> would be limited to the time it takes for you to stop the 9i listener,
> start the 10g listener and have the databases re-register with the new
> listener (alter system register;). However, there's no harm in running
> two listeners on different ports. The logistical issue is that someday
> the 9i will upgrade to 10g and you'll want to go back to a single
> listener. At that point, you'll want to go back to the clients and
> update their TNS entries (assuming that you haven't centralized that
> yet) to reference 1521 instead of the non-default port they've been
> using in the meantime.
> Dan
> Tony Sequeira wrote:
> > I have searched Metalink and come up with notes: 151812.1 and 232010.1,
> > which refer to version 9i, 8i and 7.
> >
> > My question is, do I need to create the new listener prior to creating
> > the databases? I believe I do. I'm aware of the local_listener
> > init.ora entry. Do I need it? Any gotchas? I don't think the users
> > would be amused if there was disruption to their access to the 9i
> > instance.
> >

S. Anthony Sequeira
Flame on!
		-- Johnny Storm

Received on Wed Apr 02 2008 - 07:55:43 CDT

Original text of this message