Re: Recommended oracle server version for NT

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:98i5bt$4aa$1_at_soap.pipex.net...
> the conversation on this group suggest that 8.1.6 is stable, whereas 8.1.7
> is still in need of a few patches. So unless you desperately need the
 extra
> 8.1.7 functionality I'd go with 8.1.6
>

I think I'd agree with this, Niall. However, I've had 8.1.7 on W2K running for a month or so now, and not a problem in sight (OK, OK -I know I don't thrash it to death! I do test it to destruction, sometimes, though, and it's never gone ballistic on me yet). That actually surprised me, given some of the stuff I've read about 8.1.7 here. I was expecting it to be far more flakey. So I don't think I'd necessarily wait until I was 'desperate' before going the extra point release... 'needy', maybe. 'Desperate', no!

On the whole, though, I'd still stick with 8.1.6.3 until 8.1.7 gets to a similar patch level.

Regards
HJR
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> "Shaul Ben-Yossef" <sbenyo_at_attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3aa9711c_3_at_news3.prserv.net...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I want to upgrade my 8.0.5 database to 8i on NT, and I have to decide to
> > which 8i version to upgrade to.
> >
> > My choice is between 8.1.6 release 2 and 8.1.7.
> > I've tested the 8.1.6 for some time found it to be a good and stable
> > version.
> > I also know that this version has been used for quite a time in big
 projects
> > a fact that assures my tests.
> >
> > As for version 8.1.7, I don't know of projects using this version, and
 I
> > don't have enough time to test it as I did to the 8.1.6.
> >
> > Also I don't know if this version has been used for enough time to prove
 it
> > is a stable version.
> >
> > On the other hand the 8.1.7 has some bug fixed and new features that
 will
> > not be applied to the 8.1.6 version.
> >
> > I will appreciate any experience advice / recommedations or tips for
> > choosing between either of these version for NT.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shaul
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 13 2001 - 05:30:40 CST