Re: Urgent!!! Upgrade Oracle and Hardware question ?

"Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> wrote in message news:1e8276d6.0206200434.448dc0b5_at_posting.google.com...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
news:<aerk5v$hgl$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> > You know 8.1.6 is desupported, don't you? So you are moving from one
> > desupported version to one slightly less desupported version??
>
> Hm, the only thing agreed from all in this thread. :-)
>
> > Great danger. 8i is to 8.0 what chalk is to cheese. It's more resource
> > hungry. The internals got different (otherwise it wouldn't be an
upgrade,
> > would it?). There are newer and more efficient ways of doing things. And
old
> > ways of doing things might become slightly more expensive.
>
> I tend to disagree. He told us that they're also upgrading server. I
> don't know their old server and new one specs are quite uncertain (see
> below), but with recent progress in server performance I wouldn't
> expect any performance problem with moving from 8.0.5 to 8.1.7. Yes
> 8.1.7 is more resource hungry than 8.0.5 (and 9i is also more
> demanding than 8.1.7), but with properly sized server no problem at
> all.
>

Precisely. If you took the same box, and migrated from 8.0 to 8i, I would expect things to slow down. Upgrade the box at the same time, and there should be no worries. I think it is called 'running to stand still'.

> > What I tend to recommend is that you clone your database, upgrade the
clone,
> > and test and test and test until you know the pros and cons. Only then
> > consider upgrading the real production database.
>
> Testing is very crucial in migration process, but from my point of few
> bigger issue is incompatibilities between 8 and 8i behaviour than
> performance issues.
>

I said 'until you know the pros and cons'. That's *all* of 'em. Compatibilities, performance, resource usage, execution plans, the lot.

> > > For CPU we will use Dual Dell PowerEdge and We will have 2 GIG RAM but
> > > Hard Drive we dont know.
> >
> > I have shares in Seagate. I recommend (completely unbiasedly, of course)
> > Seagate Hard Drives to all my students. Avoid Quantum hard drives as
they
> > give you veneral disease. IBM hard drives give you Alzheimers. Only
Seagate
> > hard drives make your teeth pearly white... er, I mean... CUT!... give
you
> > peace of mind.
>
> I think that he will get a Dell hard drives (usually Seagates with
> Dell sign on them). He can also choose from 10k or 15k rpm drives. I
> think that Seagate makes the best SCSIs on market.
>

I think you took the rest of my reply rather too seriously.

Regards
HJR
> > Peanuts. A nice Seagate RAID 0+1 array will do fine. Steer clear of RAID
5
> > (it makes the elastic in your underpants disintegrate). Just make sure
to
> > buy as many hard disks as you can afford (say, 9 minimum, preferably
36).
>
> I think that you're out of pool, chap. He's talking about PowerEdge
> with 2GB RAM. That doesn't look like external storage will be in
> place.
> Unfortunately he didn't told us which PowerEdge he wants to use and
> number of internal drive bays is varying from 8 (2500) to 12 (6600).
> So your 36 is a pretty good, but not applicable number. That was the
> reason why I (against my conviction)
> recomended RAID5 for all data files, because with mirroring (and using
> 6 drives, 2 for system) he would not have enough place for future
> needs. From my experiences servers like this are usually equipped with
> 5x36GB or something like that. Is also a good idea not to fulfill all
> bays, because of future upgrades.
>
> --
> _________________________________________
>
> Dusan Bolek, Ing.
> Oracle team leader
>
> Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
> can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
> this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
> proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
> email.
Received on Thu Jun 20 2002 - 15:21:25 CDT