Re: oracle9i - reliable/stable?

I can't speak for RAC or Data Guard: those things require sufficient extra boxes that my study wouldn't cope.

I can tell you, however, that 9.0.1 is as stable as I've seen any Oracle release. Every new feature they've advertised (apart from the two you've mentioned -sorry!) works. Not *quite* as advertised (suspending transactions not resuming after switching autoextend on, for example). But darned near close enough for me.

I'll be honest and say I wouldn't have touched 8.1.5 with a barge pole. The thing was riddled with, er, "unexpected features". It wouldn't surprise me if 9i had its share of entomological additions, but I haven't found them yet. Quirks, yes. Instabilities, no.

But all of this is irrelevant. You only move to 9i when you've tested it to destruction for yourself. But if you're asking if its worth investing the time for such testing, I'd have to say yes.

Regards
HJR "Vince" <vince4net_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:66924339.0109191318.28677798_at_posting.google.com...
> To whom running oracle9i,
>
> We are considering migrating to oracle9i from 8.1.6, and I would like
> to get the word on the street with respect to oracle9i reliability,
> stablility, performance, etc. I'm especially interested in
> reliability of Real Application Cluster (RAC) and Data Guard
> (standby). What is your general impression of oracle9i?
>
> Any comments are appreciated.
>
> Vince
Received on Wed Sep 19 2001 - 22:55:02 CDT