Re: can Oracle 9i be installed in a non-top level directory

From: Mark Bole <makbo_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:48:53 GMT
Message-ID: <pE1fc.36652$%e1.4216@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>

Joel Garry wrote:

> Mark Bole <makbo_at_pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3FHdc.20448$1o6.3813_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
>

>>Where you put your database datafiles is a completely different issue, 
>>although the OFA standard also addresses that.  Once again, a standard 
>>that allows for different servers and more than one database per server 
>>is a good idea.
>>

>
>
> I'd say a standard that claims performance improvements but winds up
> fighting hardware developments and also doesn't address backups isn't
> necessarily a good idea.
>
> And don't get me started on the installer and ORACLE_HOME and OFA on
> Windows.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> All else fails, blame the Blackberry.
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040410/news_1b10prgn.html

You got me there. I haven't tried to implement OFA on Windows, just took the defaults for a single database. I can easily believe it would be a headache, gotta love that registry...

Oracle was a pioneer in coming up with a workable approach to maintaining multiple versions of vendor-supplied software on a single physical (Un*x) machine, IMHO. It could use an update, to be sure, (after ten-plus years, who couldn't?) but many other vendors have borrowed from this approach (or had the same idea at the same time), and for that I think we all should be glad.

--Mark Bole Received on Tue Apr 13 2004 - 21:48:53 CDT