Re: Accidental Use of Oracle Active Data Guard

From: Lothar Flatz <>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:13:53 +0100
Message-ID: <>

True. People that would never dream of going to court without a lawyer will reject to consider an experienced partner when dealing with LMS.

On 09.02.2016 19:06, Seth Miller wrote:
> Michael,
> When dealing with police, the IRS or Oracle LMS, do not engage them
> directly. You need to have an advocate and a firewall. Urge your
> company to get a partner involved immediately (if they haven't
> already). Oracle LMS will tell you all kinds of stuff that isn't true
> or legally binding. Only an experienced partner will know what
> information should or should not be shared with them and will work
> with them to, at the very least, reduce the back fees Oracle will charge.
> Seth Miller
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Iggy Fernandez
> < <>> wrote:
> I found this article:
> The summary is that you did not make the change intentionally.
> Oracle did it without your asking, without your knowledge, and
> without warning you that it had made a change that would cause you
> to incur additional licensing charges.
> Iggy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 08:26:29 -0800
> Subject: Re: Accidental Use of Oracle Active Data Guard
> From: <>
> To:
> <>
> CC:
> <>;
> <>;
> <>
> Just wanted to reply with a Thank You to all. I appreciate all the
> great advice.
> I know I shouldn't take it personal, but it really does irritate
> me that Oracle seems to take the position of criminalizing their
> customer first. I really do try my best to stay within compliance
> as it is the responsible and respectable thing to do, but the
> respect sure does feel one sided when dealing with licensing. I'm
> just hoping that working with Oracle we can resolve this.
> Thanks again,
> Michael
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:00 PM, John Hallas
> <
> <>> wrote:
> What an excellent response Matthew. This is really helpful
> information for anyone responsible for ensuring that license
> compliance is adhered to.
> Thanks for taking the time to write it up and post to the list.
> John
> <>
> *From:*
> <>
> [
> <>] *On Behalf Of
> *Dimensional DBA
> *Sent:* 09 February 2016 02:04
> *To:*
> <>; 'Andrew Kerber'
> *Cc:* 'oracle-l_at_freelists org'
> *Subject:* RE: Accidental Use of Oracle Active Data Guard
> Don’t answer this question to the list, but you need to think
> about why is a licenses audit being performed? Normally a
> license audit is only performed when it is believed you are in
> violation your licenses, such as turning on the OEM push back
> of data to Oracle Support for your databases, uploading files
> you provided during a recent SR, Talking to Oracle sales folks
> about what you are doing in your company including using
> products that they know are unlicensed, your company is in
> negotiation to reduce licensing cost or there is some other
> negotiation going on.
> For you, it would have been helpful to ask for the list’s
> support the moment your company was given notice that Oracle
> was demanding a license audit. We could have helped you in
> advance and eliminated the foreboding you are feeling .
> For now, you need to take a moment and breathe.
> Once a license audit has started things are out of your hands
> and normally in the hands of Chief Legal Counsel and the CFO
> (sometimes the CIO) of your company.
> Having done licenses audits when I worked for Oracle
> Consulting, companies I have worked for (second thing I do
> normally starting with a company) and now in my own
> consultancy, what is being looked for normally relates back to
> that question up above. It really depends on the skill of the
> Oracle consulting person sent as to what breadth your audit
> will take as there is no training course in Oracle Consulting
> on how to do a license audit and there is nothing in the
> contract that determines how a license audit will be performed
> from a technical basis.
> Some pointers during the license audit
> 1.Your technical personnel should not be talking to the
> auditor, including not going to lunch with them. Only a
> management level person normally part of the Legal or Finance
> team if not the Chief Legal Counsel or the CFO themselves, who
> will relate to the technical team what is needed from them for
> the audit to be performed.
> 2.Your team should only provide Oracle what is required. You
> do not have to fulfill all requests from Oracle as they
> normally overreach in their requests. Your upper management
> will help with that decision.
> 3.They should not have to have direct access to your servers
> if you provide a person to run the commands. Normally
> technical person is accompanied by lower management level
> person to ensure the conversation is only run this command and
> put output here, instead of the broader questions Oracle
> Consulting will want to ask.
> You can send me a private email and I can provide you with a
> list of things to check for in unconventional places to verify
> license compliance.
> As to your question of defense, having worked for a variety of
> Chief Legal Counsels, some of who were previous prosecutors,
> you again need to breathe.
> The defense can be impeded by the answer to the first
> question, but if your license snafu is a single database
> server and a human has made a mistake, the defense is simple
> and your Chief Legal Counsel will deal with it.
> If this is one of a variety of license violations then the
> defense gets more complicated, versus it is single error
> committed on a single server or across the whole fleet. Single
> error type versus multiple error types.
> I have worked with Oracle Sales on a variety of license
> issues, but normally I am telling them when an issue occurred
> instead of them finding something in a licenses audit. There
> are a variety of things that you can do to help your Chief
> Legal Counsel which includes gathering up your logging
> information listener.logs and alert.logs on your databases
> before they roll off and interpreting the data for them.
> Some examples of license violations I have encountered.
> 1.Those new server replacements had twice the cores as the
> previous servers and the DBA team and management was oblivious
> to that when the upgrades were done. This basically was a 32
> core addition that including EE Edition, RAC, Partitioning,
> ASO, Management packs etc. It took a couple of weeks to get
> back into license compliance.
> 2.A standby or primary server crashed and another server was
> pressed into service to maintain HA and the other server
> actually had a higher core count than the previous server.
> 3.Databases were flipped off of servers to new servers and the
> previous servers were never deprecated or used again, but the
> Oracle SW was still installed.
> 4.A set of test servers utilized production licensing for
> testing, then when the production servers were built, someone
> forgot to turn off the servers with still running databases in
> test.
> 5.A UNIX/Linux admin mistakenly put the deployment line in
> Chef/Puppet code and deployed Oracle SW to the fleet left
> there until I did a license audit.
> 6.A UNIX/Linux admin moved multiple physical servers to a VM
> Ware servers and spread the databases across the entire
> physical server fleet, which took 2 months to shuffle things
> around and condense the Oracle part of the fleet onto a
> smaller number of physical VM Ware hosts.
> *Matthew Parker*
> *Chief Technologist*
> *Dimensional DBA*
> *425-891-7934 (cell)*
> *D&B *047931344**
> *CAGE *7J5S7**
> * <>*
> *View Matthew Parker's profile on LinkedIn*
> <>
> *From:*
> <>
> [] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Cunningham
> *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2016 5:01 PM
> *To:* Andrew Kerber
> *Cc:* oracle-l_at_freelists org
> *Subject:* Re: Accidental Use of Oracle Active Data Guard
> Thanks Andrew.
> On Feb 8, 2016 4:42 PM, "Andrew Kerber"
> < <>> wrote:
> Contact house of brick technologies. They have done quite a
> bit of work with oracle audit defense.
> Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Michael Cunningham
> < <>>
> wrote:
> Hello all, we have an Oracle audit going on and we are
> being told we are going to get charged for using Active
> Data Guard.
> Has anyone been successful in working with Oracle to have
> them realize these were unintentional and not deliberate?
> Technically the feature was enabled, but it was by
> accident and incorrect configuration of srvctl. As it
> happens, we had one standby database configured
> with db_startoption=open, and the other standby database
> with db_startoption=read only.
> The first was as a result of requiring a "failover" to
> physical standby and we missed setting the
> db_startoption=mount when we rebuilt the standby on the
> server that used to be primary.
> Each of the problems have been corrected, but Oracle is
> working on a bill and I'm looking for some advice from the
> group.
> --
> Michael Cunningham
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc is registered in England with
> number 358949. The registered office of the company is
> situated at Gain Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD3 7DL. This
> email and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s)
> only and may be confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the
> sender by replying to the email that you have received in
> error and then destroy the email.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
> disclose, copy or rely on the email or its attachments in any
> way.
> This email does not constitute a contract in writing for the
> purposes of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
> 1989.
> Our Standard Terms and Conditions of Purchase, as may be
> amended from time to time, apply to any contract that we enter
> into. The current version of our Standard Terms and Conditions
> of Purchase is available at:
> Although we have taken steps to ensure the email and its
> attachments are virus-free, we cannot guarantee this or accept
> any responsibility,
> and it is the responsibility of recipients to carry out their
> own virus checks.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> --
> Michael Cunningham


Received on Tue Feb 09 2016 - 19:13:53 CET

Original text of this message