Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database won't mount, but no errors reported ???

Re: Database won't mount, but no errors reported ???

From: Alex Filonov <afilonov_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 21 Jan 2003 12:05:15 -0800
Message-ID: <336da121.0301211205.514dc02e@posting.google.com>


"Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3e29ae57_2_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
> "JustAnotherDBA" <jadba_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:it6W9.7084$F_3.220_at_news.bellsouth.net...
> > As everyone else has said, this is a known issue on Solaris.
> >
> > FYI... When Oracle hangs at startup, a good trick to see more
> informational
> > error messages is to turn on trace at the server level with init.ora parm
> > sql_trace=true. Not sure what it would say, but I know 1 time this came in
> > handy when we hit the max open files set at the kernel level.
> >
> > Just do not leave this parm in the init.ora, it generates a billion trace
> > files.
> >
> > Note: Has anyone ever heard of Windoze machines being up for over 7 months
> ?
> > We schedule nightly reboots on most of our Windoze servers and thankfully
> I
> > don't work on those. We , of course , run Oracle on a real OS.
> >
>
> Just my 2c:
>
> Windoze isn't so bad. It just gets *used* badly.
>

Sorry, I have to disgree. System without strict memory control is bad.

> IMHO, it's pretty stable for small/medium size installations (from NT351,
> NT4, W2K through XP Pro), **provided it is administered correctly**. Many
> years ago I ran an important accounting system on Oracle 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 for
> a medium-sized Lloyd's insurance broker on NT4 in the City of London for
> months, without the need to reboot.
>

NT and W2K would work OK if you are running OK applications on them. If there are no memory leaks and/or calls outside of program area, system is pretty stable. The problem is, it does allow calls outside of program area and it doesn't clean up heap.

> A decent Unix is better and more scalable, but of course you pay more.
>

Why? You pay less or nothing for Linux. You might need to pay people more though.

> The biggest problem, I think, is that because Windoze *looks* easy,
> companies think they can employ the same amateur idiot like they did for
> their departmental desktops and Access databases, and expect the corporate
> level of resilience and availability.
>

This is called corporate software policy. And MS advertized not long ago that you can administrate windoze for less money than UNIX. Idiots are sitting in different places than you think. I'm wrong. They are sitting where you think they are, plus in some other places (more expensive).

> And of course, we had the fools who would try to do file and print serving
> and all the other stuff on an NT box, in addition to database serving.
>

But UNIX can do it! Put Linux on the same box, it will do the same tasks plus some.

> In short, if we had the same degree of professionalism and competence with
> our NT Admin as we have in our Unix Admin, the difference would be much
> narrower.
>

If grandma had some extra body parts, she(he) would be grandpa...

> Flame away!
>
> Regards,
> Paul
Received on Tue Jan 21 2003 - 14:05:15 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US