Re: Installing 12c OMS/EM
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:47:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJzM94C-pgp1YEo3DD0BLvC1pj1Q0P5zZFZsTzF5R7X9C-O8eQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Thanks everyone for the input. I'll update the team. My suggestion will be a new 11.2.0.4 database. While we have plans to upgrade all our 11.2.0.2 databases, I've been told it has to wait until we complete moving them to the new hardware and everything is stable.
Have a great day.
Sandy
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Sharman <pete.sharman_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> Yup, agreed on the 11.2.0.4 bit.
>
> 12c support is available for those customers that went to a 12c repository
> before we did the backflip. It will come again soon, but you are not
> supported to go to a new 12c repository creation at this point in time.
> Hence the reason for the lack of mention on the Certification page.
>
> Pete
>
> Pete Sharman
> Database Architect, DBaaS
> Enterprise Manager Product Suite
> 33 Benson Crescent CALWELL ACT 2905 AUSTRALIA
> Phone: +61262924095 | | Fax: +61262925183 | | Mobile: +61414443449
>
> "Controlling developers is like herding cats."
> Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
>
> "Oh no, it's not, it's much harder than that!"
> Bruce Pihlamae, long term Oracle DBA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Forbrich [mailto:fuzzy.graybeard_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 7:07 AM
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: Installing 12c OMS/EM
>
> Support says 11.2.0.2 is certified as repository, but I'd encourage
> upgrading to 11.2.0.4 especially since Premier Support on 11gR2 ends in
> January ... I would not want to be on an obsolete, as well as extended
> support, version.
>
> Theoretically 12c can also be used as repository, but it is not listed in
> Certifications on MOS.
>
> /Hans
>
> On 13/11/2014 12:40 PM, Sandra Becker wrote:
> > It is an EE 11.2.0.2 database. Used for very little right now. A few
> > scripts that gather information once a day. We are trying to better
> > manage our resources and believe using this database for both would be
> > a reasonable option for us. I believe the database has more than
> > enough memory and disk to handle redo generation, datafiles, etc.
> > based on what I've read for the requirements. There is no SYSMAN user
> > in the database so we're ok on that point as well.
> >
> > Thank you for the information.
> >
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- Sandy GHX -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Nov 13 2014 - 21:47:58 CET