Re: Oracle 10g Server on Windows XP Pro

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40b5d2d3$0$31674$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Nothing like a bit of careful snipping to change the entire sense of
> something to make your point, huh? Read it all again. There was a deadly
> brown snake in my garage, and I'd had a drink or three to calm down over it.
> Get the picture?

Well you came over so pompously in your most recent responses I didn't for a second think you could have a sense of humour. My bad! I don't really see how the scenario above would lead you to make the statement I quoted about bad 10g installs, but maybe it's an "American humour" thing?

> If you are in any way interested in knowing which of the two statements is
> more representative of my experience than the other, visit www.dizwell.com
> and see how many Linux 10g installations I've done and documented (there are
> pictures, so you won't have to read too much, and you'll be able to see I
> didn't just fake it).

I fail to see the relevance of Linux 10g installations when I've made it clear I'm installing on XP Pro and you've had quite a few words to say on the subject of people needing to understand Windows and networking! Isn't that like me saying that I spent 15 years as an IBM Systems Programmer programming in System/390 Assembler and then trying to use that as justification for dishing out advice on object-oriented programming in Java?

But if we're all going to get our willies out please let me wave mine about too and tell you how I worked for Oracle post sales support in the UK around Release 5 time (5 was in the field, release 6 was in development) and was doing such a good job that I got head-hunted for Oracle Development (IBM porting team) in Belmont, California. :-P See, anyone can brag - however it really has no relevance to the current discussion.

> On what grounds? Presumably not on any scientific ones that involve any
> actual objective testing, because otherwise you wouldn't be asking for help
> here, would you? So what? Blind prejudice again?

I was asking for help here because the DBA's are busy sorting out their own installations and I needed to get on and write some stored procs and .Net C# code that was originallys scheduled for delivery to QA (on SQL Server platform) yesterday. The decisions of the DBA's and management are way out of my control. The tone of your response above (you'll be telling me next that it's not "opinion"!) indicates to me you have litte experience of the real world because in my experience, having worked for many companies (IBM, Amdahl, Ford Motor Company) ridiculous timescales and last-minute changes in what are quite major technology areas are pretty much par for the course.

The decision between Oracle 9i/10g is an extremely valid one in the real world. 10g has been out as a production release for a mere couple of months. The DBA's have had an initial "toe in the water" experience that has seemingly given them a lack of confidence in being able to deliver the solution we need on 10g to the tight timescales we have. (Problems don't just include the XP Pro situation. An install on a development Win Server 2003 PC apparently appeared to go succesfully but has left the machine with no Enterprise Manager, services that should auto-start are frequently stopping for no apparent reason, etc etc giving the DBA's little confidence that this is a solid, well-tested product or one with little risk attached to it)

Like most people who work in the real world, rather than in one of training and just being able to spend most of the day hanging out in the newsgroups, we take a pragmatic view of things weighing up risk based on experience. We have a tight deadline, the Oracle decision was forced on us very late in the project and the initial experiences have been anything but positive. The DBA's have decided to go with a "tried and tested" Oracle product that's been in the field for 18 months rather than one which has been in general availability for just a couple of months.

> Er, no. It means you and your colleagues don't know what you're doing.

And you say I'M the one who's "sniping" and giving "opinion"! Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. He's black!

For the record we only looked at 10g because Oracle told us 10g was "much more like the SQL Server you are used to, where you don't need to be a DBA to use it. We get a lot of criticism from our competitors about how Oracle DBA's needs more training and expertise than other database systems. We spent a lot of work on 10g to make it easier to use and implement to help those customers who had struggled switching from SQL Server to 9i". OK, so we knew we didn't know what we were doing where Oracle was concerned - we haven't had the time, but that was a decision outside our control - and we took the Oracle advice. We've now decided that was a bad move for the reasons I've outlined above.

> is sad, since several thousand other downloaders can't all have stuffed it
> up as magisterially as you and your colleagues appear to have done.

Ah here we go again with the "opinion" stuff that is so endemic to your responses, but which you have repeatedly criticised me for.

> whatever. I rest my case on the 'intellectually lazy' charge, though I
> admire your chutzpah about it: we can't make 10g work, so we'll just give
> up. Nice. I can't wait for the day you have to upgrade.

In the real world we have to weigh risk and delivery dates. The decision makes perfect sense to me given the last-minute management decision to go with Oracle rather than SQL Server that we started with and the lack of "time in the field" of 10g.  

> If only you would realise that the Enterprise Manager in 10g is using a
> completely different technology to the one in 9i, and thus has different
> networking demands (it needs one that's configured properly for a start).

I think I have realised that. Indeed I have made it very clear in previous posts - hence the decision to go back to ORacle 9g where these networking demands aren't causing us grief, the decision that you regard as proof that we "don't know what we're doing". For the record, it wasn't me who came in to our company and said "Oracle 10g is much easier to use and install than 9i. For SQL Server users it makes Oracle as easy to install and use as SQL Server" - it was an Oracle techie. My delivery date for completed code was supposed to have been yesterday. The visit from the Oracle techie last week caused the late switch from 9i which we had installed the week before and had a fairly positive experience with to 10g. As a result of that switch, under advice that 10g was a faster, simpler "one CD not three", easier to use product, we feel we've wasted the best part of a week that has now been added to our delivery time.

And yes upgrading will be a pain, but hopefull we'll have an experienced Oracle DBA to help by then (one of our two DBA's has just resigned and we are recruiting someone with more Oracle experience to replace him).  

> So yeah, you're correct: your attitude sucked from the word go and stayed
> that way despite every opportunity given you for it not to.

There you go again, putting words that I never said into my mouth. I never said my attitude sucked. I said my first posting might have been regarded as a little (emphasis on the word "little") emotional, but is one that is totally understandable given the frustrations we were going through. It asked a question and got a rather condescending response (someone else in the office here called it "arrogant" and "pompous" but I'll settle for "condescending"!) which I reacted to. And the situation went downhill from there because I give as good as I get. If your "attitude" were more like that of the best mentors, or those helping out on other newsgroups, this continual sniping situation (didn't you say you weren't going to waste any more time replying after my second post?) would never have arisen.

So YOU have been working with the product long enough to know that Oracle 9i or 10g is a mass of configuration files, ini files, logs hidden in different directories, endless thousand page manuals, a multitude of products etc. and that you really need a lot of time to get to grips with it and do proper problem diagnosis. But any newbie who comes in expecting a more straightforward product, along the lines of SQL Server, "doesn't know how to configure Windows" and is seemingly best advised to go elsewhere (your second response I believe)

A good instructor would have explained, as gently as possible, that the product is rather complex, and not "SQL Server with a different company name on", and would, perhaps, have said "Can you give us your emoms.log, your installation log, your listener and tnsxxx.ora files and maybe we can make a start on working out what the problem is. Ask if you're not sure where to find these or make sure you read xxxx manual for assistance".

Instead you gave "opinion" and by your second posting have started making snide remarks about my ability to understand Windows networking, neglecting to mention that actually networking is a whole lot more important in 10g than it was in 9i.

Check the times of my postings (from the UK). I don't have the luxury of posting here in work time. Postings, as I already pointed out, were made at an ungodly hour before work or when I was already late leaving work or last thing at night (it is now 11.30pm here and I have to be up for work at 5.30am) so in my eagerness to get to bed (or to the train for work) some links were incorrectly posted. Shock! Horror! I'd love to have the time you appear to have hanging out here, during daylight hours, typing long, thought-out replies, but I have a job to do. I'm sorry I mistyped an "8" as a "9" on a URL link I was copying from another PC no longer connected to the internet. I'm sorry that in trying to retrace many Google group messages I'd seen that day I pasted the wrong one into a message here. But that's what happens when all you really want to do is get some sleep. Your complete intolerance and over-reaction to something as straightforward as a one-digit typo makes me wonder how on earth you cope in the real world!

> But just in case someone with slightly less attitude is even remotely
> interested, there is a Release Note available at technet.oracle.com which
> mentions known issues with doing a 10g install on a DHCP machine, or on a
> non-networked machine which will be networked later:
>
> Quote ON....
> To install Oracle Database or Oracle Database 10g Companion Products on a
> server configured with DHCP, or if you want to perform an off-network
> installation and connect to the network afterwards, then you must
> appropriately configure the Microsoft Loopback adapter as the primary
> network interface before installation.
> Follow this procedure:
> Install Microsoft Loopback adapter on the DHCP computer.
>
> After installing the adapter, you must assign it a non-routable IP. The
> following values are recommended: 192.168.x.x (where x is any value) and
> 10.10.10.10. Then assign a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0.
> Modify System32\drivers\etc\hosts to include an entry of the form:
> <non-routable IP> <Fully-Qualified Windows Machine Name> <Windows Machine
> Name Aliases>
> For example:
> 10.10.10.10 oracle-laptop.us.oracle.com oracle-laptop
>
> Windows considers Loopback adapters as a type of network adapter. After
> installing the Loopback adapter, you have at least two network adapters on
> your computer: your network adapter and the Loopback adapter. You want
> Windows to use the loopback adapter as the primary adapter. Check your
> operating system documentation for instructions on how to do this.
> Quote OFF....
>
> Section 10.22 of
> http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/html/B10132_02/toc.htm#CACCBEJJ if
> you're even vaguely interested.

Thank you for that. I've had a few direct emails so know that will be of interest. My DBA says he has been told by our Oracle rep that there are "known problems with XP Pro" and that a patch release is available on the list whose name I forget (begins with m - mentec or something? I left the manuals at work) which the install guide tells you about and advises you to check, neglecting to point out that to register you need to have a customer support number which we apparently are struggling to get a purchase order completed for.

Ian Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 17:30:33 CDT