Re: Oracle 9i on Redhat 9: no go??

"Ace" <aceducy_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:99d25ddd.0304191953.29533fc1_at_posting.google.com...
> "Kenneth A Kauffman" <kkauffman_at_nospam.headfog.com> wrote in message
news:<uhioa.287893$0g4.7895630_at_news2.east.cox.net>...
>
> You can get it installed - but you'll have to look up each error
> during the install and deal with it like everybody else.

Your lack of judgement in good taste is noted here. I have done my fair share of configuration of Oracle on AIX, HP-UX, Windows NT,2000, and recently 2003, different flavors of Linux and have dealt with issues as they occur, including linking. Please note, I really like how the IA64 solutions perform on HP-UX.

>
> My 2c is this: I really dislike Windows servers, but you have to admit
> - there's a whole lot less hastle when installing something like Ora.
> On the other hand, with Unix you basically have to COMPILE AND LINK
> the whole dang package. I think this is acient, archiac technology
> that's just got to go. For some reason, we've never been able to get
> around these methods (other than some binary rpms etc).

Linking, while painful, is one reason for stability and performance is better on *nix.

>
> This means that your entire working environment in Unix must exactly
> match the machine upon which generated the setup/install package.
> This balance is almost always a mis-match, and you'll run around
> patching one required package, back-dating another one, updating
> another. I think I went through 8 or 9 "patches" on my RH
> Application Server - which is an Oracle certified platform unlike RH9.
> I got 9iDB installed on RH9 with increased efforts.

This was my original point.

>
> The joy is that once you've paid your dues, Linux just can't be beat
> for performance and reliability. Under the same hardware, RH-AS will
> run circles around any version of Window servers, including NT, 2k and
> even XP Pro.
>
> So, to hopefully make my life a bit less troublsome I invested in RH
> App Server as it was certified from Oracle. But even the latest
> Oracle and RH-AS paired together will not install without a lot of
> intervention. Who do I blame? I'd have to give this one to Oracle
> Engineering. WAY too much compiling, WAY too much linking, WAY too
> much reliance on micro-specific versions of Java.

I have had consistently *low* problems with RHAS installation of 9i. But then I use the silent installer using response files and then have scripts that I've written to create the SIDs for our performance labs.

>
> I also got 9iAS installed on RedHat AS, with the usual headaches.
> I've been working on Collaboration Suite for 2 days, but I'll
> eventually get it also. But I often wonder - how is Larry Ellison
> gonna take over the world like he claims, when version 9 of his base
> s/w gives even the most seasoned Unix propeller heads a hard time?
>
> BTW - Solaris 9 and Ora 9DB went a good deal smoother than any Linux,
> then again 1GB of RAM on a Solaris box is $3000.00 vs $75.00 for
> Intel...

What other linux distros have you tried? SuSE provided little problems.

>
> > "Pasc" <nospam_at_xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3ea134df$0$154$e4fe514c_at_dreader8.news.xs4all.nl...
> > > Tried to install Oracle 9i on a fresh Redhat 9 install but to no
avail..
> > the
> > > installation generates an error "Error in invoking target install of
> > > makefile ins_oemagent.mk"
> > >
> > > Tried to run the makefile independantly..but no success either..
make -f
> > > ins_oemagent.mk install results in error stating that __ctype_b cannot
be
> > > found.. and this seems to relate to a uncompatible glibc file ..
> > >
> > > any help?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Pasc
> > >
> > >
> >
> > RedHat 9 switched to NPTL threads and their associated tools have also
> > (binutils/gcc). This can cause some problem when compiling ANY package.
I
> > have had some issues with RH8 also. The most reliable builds I get are
from
> > 7.3 and SuSE. Keep in mind that SuSE is the core of UnitedLinux (even
> > though other vendors are part of it), and Oracle is now supported on
this
> > enterprise offering.
> >
> > I still use RedHat for my servers, but am seriously considering SuSE as
they
> > tend to stay more stable and compatible through the upgrade process.
Too
> > many inconsistencies are arising from RedHat going from version to
version.
> >
> > my 2 cents...
> >
> > ken k
Received on Mon Apr 21 2003 - 07:38:31 CDT