Re: Is Oracle really worth it?

inferno2000_at_my-deja.com (inferno2000) wrote in message news:<a9390719.0112121813.43a367d0_at_posting.google.com>...
> After a long and quiet 1.5 years in operation, our Oracle database
> once again runs into wierd, undocumented internal error (ora-600
> [12700],[1493234693],[93]) during mission-critical processes. The
> process halts upon error and it takes quite awhile before the problem
> is resolved to continue normal operation.
>
> Query to Oracle results in explaination which clearly cannot be
> foreseen or prevented in anyway. It makes me wonder then, does Oracle
> really worth it? Is there no way to count on Oracle to behave
> properly? Can't a bug free process be expected to always run to
> completion when using Oracle database? If Oracle is not the answer,
> does that mean Microsoft or SyBase SQL server is the better database
> as far as stability and reliabiltiy is concerned?
>
> I would also like to point out that I have been working with Oracle
> database for 7 long years. And this is not the first time it
> crashed/aborted with an internal error. Such shortcoming may be ok for
> less time-critical operations, but it really is unacceptable for
> mission-critial system.

Unfortunately to my knowledge none of the other products you mentioned is bug free. A check on metalink for a 00600 with a first argument of 12700 returned at least 6 different problems at least one of which has a patch but then you do not list your version or describe what type of processing is being done so I cannot tell which if any could apply to your situation.

You may want to perform the search on metalink and see what is there.

And yes, Oracle does need to do a better job of finding and fixing bugs before they release their versions.

• Mark D Powell --