Re: Oracle 10g Server on Windows XP Pro

"Ian Smith" <ian.smith_at_irascian.com> wrote in message news:de616ff6.0405271430.2add4a90_at_posting.google.com...
> "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!

And still no acknowledgement that you were in error when claiming I didn't mention something in my first post when I did, I see. Pompous is in the eye of the beholder, Ian. That you see Oracle 10g as sooo difficult and me as sooo pompous is all of a one, I think: you are very willing to jump to conclusions.

>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?

It was an install on Linux, if I remember rightly. Such installs require that you create users, create directories, set environment variables. From memory, I was having particular problems remembering to type 'mkdir' instead of 'md' and ORACLE_SID instead of oracle_sid. It was the O/S preparation that was giving me grief (it usually does with Linux). So yes, it's your sense of humour.

> > 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?

No it's not. See above. I mentoned it because *you* brought up my post, which was as I say describing an installation on Linux. It's also relevant because it's one of many operating systems I've installed 10g onto without running into any problems whatsoever. You know, one of those things you said "should not be so difficult!"? I am merely pointing out that it isn't, under lots of different circumstances.

> 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.

No, it doesn't. Oracle 10g isn't Oracle 5, is it? And bragging is one thing, and pointing out that on many different platforms an installation isn't so very difficult is another.

> > 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?

[snip]

> 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

[snip]

You have absolutely no idea what my real-world experience is or isn't. So it does your argument and your credibility zilch good to comment on what you imagine it might be.

> The decision between Oracle 9i/10g is an extremely valid one in the
> real world.

An *informed* decision is certainly an extremely valid one. A rushed decision, based on little real information, hearsay, rumour, supposition, marketing hype or a herd mentality is not.

>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)

As I say, I have had no problems with it, even on Windows 2003. And you were eventually only able to point to a *single* post by a user who was installing onto Fedora, which isn't even certified for the product. So I guess not many other users are having problems, either. What you go on to describe in the rest of your post does not sound like the kind of environment where servers are configured carefully and correctly, and it is therefore not a surprise to me that your organisation's general experiences with 10g have been fraught.

> 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.

Does it bug you I spend time here? What concern is of yours anyway? In any case, when I'm not "hanging around in the newsgroups", and not out in the real world with customers, I do research. I tend to find relying on research results is helpful, and relying on past experience often means judgements are worth diddly-squat.

>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!

That's not 'opinion'. That is an inference drawn from the posts you have yourself made here. Hopefully, I don't have to explain the difference between drawing inferences by a process of logical deduction, and expounding a personal opinion.

> 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.

Yup. I bet they do (and that's a serious comment, not a snide one). That is the job of Oracle marketing. They are hardly like to say the truth, which is that Oracle is nothing like SQL Server, and you've got a whole lot of research and re-learning to do to get competent with it. Sensible people ignore what Oracle says when it even smells vaguely like marketing spiel. That's why purchasing decisions need to be made on the basis of a careful evaluation of a business's requirements as measured against a careful evaluation of a product's capabilities. If you just buy into whatever the marketing team tell you, you're lost before you start.

[snip]

> > 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.

Again, it is not 'opinion', but a logical deduction from the quantity of posts (or more precisely, the lack of them) on the subject.

[snip]

> > 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,

Actually, you will have problems with 9i, though not necessarily just networking ones. Have you looked into 9i's Enterprise Manager yet? I expect you will, given your business requirement to be as similar to SQL Server as possible. You will discover that a number of its key features require setting node preferred credentials... which means being able to supply an operating system user name and password. Which is where you came in, I think. And you will continue to have problems if you insist on installing even 9i onto servers which have dynamic IP addresses. Good luck with your inelligent agent when your IP address lease expires, anyway.

>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.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to explain the decision-making process. I really do. It is instructive and informative, if only because it shows how these sorts of decisions should *not* be taken. In one of my first replies to you, I asked you to 'take a deep breath'... and your story only confirms that that was sound advice. If instead of rushing around to meet deadlines you had paused for thought and provided some meaningful, concise, precise information in this newsgroup, you might well have sorted 10g out in a couple of days and still made your deadline. Instead, with a flurry of breathless activity, you lost the plot, and have ended up wasting 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.

Hold it right there. Nothing is 'understandable'. No-one here is responsible for your deadlines or your deadline-induced frustrations. Everyone on this newsgroup is a volunteer, who offers what help they can to those who are willing to take it. None of that implies that a frustrated individual is allowed to be 'emotional', or even a "little" emotional, when requesting help in the first place. And none of it implies that anyone here has to put up with such emotion when they are expressed.

>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.

I read my first reply to you again last night, just in case I really did trigger this whole exchange. There is nothing in there which is arrogant, pompous or condescending, though I willingly grant that, this time, that is my opinion. I told you about Windows being multi-user. And I told you that from your description of the problem, it sounded like a bad Windows configuration, and in particular that it was possibly network/loopback adapter issues (which it now appears might well be the actual problem). I then sought to re-assure you that Windows installations of 10g are not difficult, because I've done lots of them. That's all. Go and read it again if you don't believe me.

If it's arrogant or condescending to point out that your operating system is not as you described it, and that you might want to check your configuration, then I plead guilty as charged. It is, however, an extraordinary charge.

> And the situation went downhill from there because I give as good as I
> get.

If only.

You could have replied to that first reply of mine: "I am installing onto XP Pro, running on a Pentium III, 1GHz, 1GB, 20GB free disk space, a HeebyJeeby network card (though my laptop is not connected to the network at this point), with IP address 192.168.0.1 (though it gets it via DHCP). At which point, I would have searched for the word 'DHCP' in the online doco for you, and posted the advisory I posted last time. Three lines, Ian. Not 120.

>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.

No, I said I was 'bailing out', meaning I clearly wasn't going to help you any more, because you were not supplying me with the information I needed to provide such help. Nowhere did I say that I was going to put up with ill-informed comments about my real world experience, or my arrogance, pomposity or such like personal attributes.

> 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,

There is a single configuration file (the spfile). It *might* be replaced by another configuration file (the init.ora). Two is not a 'mass'. There is one .ini file, which belongs to Apache. One is not a 'mass'. The logs are not hidden in different directories, but are placed where you configure them to be placed.

>endless thousand page manuals,

It is true there is a *lot* of documentation. But that's no excuse for not even looking at it. The concepts manual, as I suggested to you before you brushed me off with the 'I don't want to be an Oracle DBA' line should be compulsory reading. The rest you can dip into on an as-needed basis. That's one manual, Ian. Not endless 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.

That's true too. Once the database is up and running properly, all sorts of problems can arise. But your problem, Ian, was simply one of installation. And installation is not difficult.

>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)

Try and get it right. It was my fourth response to you, and only made because 4 responses in, I still had not been given any concise technical information from you that wasn't larded with snide comments. Asking for your hardware details merely provoked the 'Strewth, do you want my hard disk as a binary image' comment, as a for example.

> 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",

I have no problems instructing people at all, Ian, so thank you for your concern; and I usually get top student assessment marks whenever I do. What you seem to fail to grasp, however, is that this is not a student-instructor session.

For the record, if you asked to be a student on one of my courses, I would refund your fees and refuse you admittance, because courses have pre-requisites. One of which is to have some vague desire to actually want to learn Oracle. The worst students I've ever had are those on the Performance Tuning course who don't actually want to slog through 5 days of the course at all, but actually want to bag you for a bit of cheap consultancy during the tea break to fix a specific perfomance problem they've got. You can see their eyes rolling around during teaching sessions, because they think they're so good they don't need all this basic stuff. Then when you do chat to them at morning tea, you realise they haven't actually got a clue what any of my suggestions actually mean.

And you have behaved exactly like that here: 'I don't want to hear about Windows configuration problems, just get 10g working properly!!'

As I say, I wouldn't want you on one of my courses.

>and would, perhaps, have said "Can you give us your
> emoms.log, your installation log, your listener and tnsxxx.ora files

Why would I have asked for any of that, when you are asking for help on getting an *installation* working, and where the very content of your post indicates that the problem with your installation is most likely to be found in your understanding and hence configuration of your operating system and network? Which is precisely what I asked for further details on.

> 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.

Your understanding of Windows was evidently deficient from the very first post. Perhaps not very seriously, but in a fairly fundamental matter concerning user accounts. It took me until your third, my fourth to start getting irriated with you, because there was an enormous stream of words (like the one you have produced here), still laced with ill-informed opinion, with errors in abundance, and still little technical fact.

I could have got a whole lot nastier with you a whole lot earlier than I did.

Maybe you should take your breaks where you can find them.

> Check the times of my postings (from the UK). I don't have the luxury
> of posting here in work time.

So? I post here (Australia) at 5.00am, before working, and am still posting at 10.00pm or later after it. Now maybe I just need to get a life, but whilst typos inevitably creep in, I don't waffle on for ages, including irrelevancies, not including key technical information, and links to posts that are wrong but that I expect my readers to work out what I meant.

I mention this here, because others should bear it in mind, too. When you post here requesting help, you have a responsibility to be precise, concise and as accurate as you can manage. No-one here is paid to deal with the myriad personal and work-related issues you might otherwise bring to the party.

>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.

It is clear you know nothing about me or my work, so please give it a rest. I don't use my personal circumstances as an excuse for posting logorrheic, error-ridden requests to do some mind-reading. You shouldn't either. You could have done it in three lines, and two posts maximum.

[snip]

> 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)

Would that be http://metalink.oracle.com?

> 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.

HJR Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 18:58:39 CDT