Re: Oracle development versions

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:17:19 +1000
Message-ID: <412aa52f$0$1427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Alex Filonov wrote:

>> > Both 9i and 10g work in 384M (Compaq Presario, Linux RH 7.3 upgraded to
>> > Fedora Core 2).
>>
>>
>> 9i, I'd agree with you. 10g? I found it very slow unless it has the 512M
>> it says it wants.
>>

> 
> Starts a little bit slow in 384M, then runs OK. Although there isn't much
> difference between 384M and 512M.
> 

>> Of course, at a push, I've run both in 256MB.
>>
>> But I wouldn't recommend it.
>>
>> IN any event, I was making a recommendation, not making definitive
>> statements about what would or would not work in extremis.
>>
>> HJR
>>

> 
> I'm not trying to pick up a fight, just trying to share experience. :-)
> Always valued your opinion, BTW.

Why is making a clarification nearly always interpreted here as wanting to pick a fight?

I made a statement about 512MB
You clarified it works in 384MB
I elaborated that I never meant to imply 512MB was an absolute numeric requirement.

There is no fight-picking there. It's actually called agreeing with you, if you would but hear it.

HJR Received on Mon Aug 23 2004 - 21:17:19 CDT