Re: known bugs in 10.2.0.1 on aix 64bit
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1bedb637-8325-4271-aafc-d5d1d49b05e0_at_v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 15, 10:48 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:17 pm, John Hurley <hurleyjo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Just the 10.2.0.3 patchset? Or 10.2.0.3 patchset with various other
> > one offs? ( Sorry the "patched up" terminology not clear at least to
> > me ).
>
> Patched up with various other one-offs. Located from known problems
> with ASSM and a few CBO and query result-set issues. If you want, I
> can get you the actual bug numbers, they are in our Opatch mini-
> database.
>
> > Any particular reason you have not gone past 10.2.0.3?
>
> Yes, a few reasons:
>
> I'm not paid to install patches to Oracle, I'm paid to provide
> reliable database resources that run no matter what.
> What we run on them is our business applications, and those have
> priority. Not the database. The business aplications only require
> Oracle 10g.
> From past experience, the quickest way to throw out the reliability of
> an Oracle installation is to install every dot patch that Oracle
> delivers.
> Unreliable services mean we're out of a job.
> So far, we've been able to provide 100% - not 99.99, not "4 9s". 100%
> = 0 (zero) unsheduled outage - in 12 instances supporting a wide
> variety of consolidated production and dev/test environments of DW,
> Hyperion, Peoplesoft, SOA/OSB, Apex and Forms applications over a
> period of nearly 4 years.
> Of course: that level of service delivery must be because we don't
> know what we're doing.
>
> In simple terms: if it's not broken, it is meeting the SLA *and* you
> do not need new db functionality, do NOT touch it.
>
> Don't blame me, blame Oracle: it's their software, I don't write it.
> And I most certainly refuse to QA it for them, for free and at the
> expense of my professional delivery and reputation.
>
> > How about the CPUs and ( just more recently ) the PSUs?
>
> How about them? Read the prior answer. As well, I add:
>
> CPUs are primarily security patches. We don't have a security
> problem.
> No, I don't care what "security experts" claim:
> we get independently security audited twice a year and so far no one
> has been able to poke through or find fault; those are the facts our
> performance is measured upon.
> Not hypothetical "web site" scenarios.
>
> (How many commercial sites do you know of that audit security that
> frequently?
> Thought so...)
>
> PSU's are too recent for me to form an opinion on them and anyway most
> do not apply to 10.2.0.3. And quite frankly: Oracle's "patch releases"
> mean nothing to me given their past history of instability.
>
> Like I said: I'm paid to provide a reliable db service. Not Oracle
> installs.
> This is not a software house or IT services company. We run a business
> that has nothing to do with software making: it just uses it. And my
> job is to make sure we use it to the most.
>
> I also back my claims with independent external audits which have
> never found a flaw in any of our processes, in the nearly 4 years I've
> been here.
> Not being condescending or anything, just stating the facts.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1bedb637-8325-4271-aafc-d5d1d49b05e0_at_v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 15, 10:48 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:17 pm, John Hurley <hurleyjo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Just the 10.2.0.3 patchset? Or 10.2.0.3 patchset with various other
> > one offs? ( Sorry the "patched up" terminology not clear at least to
> > me ).
>
> Patched up with various other one-offs. Located from known problems
> with ASSM and a few CBO and query result-set issues. If you want, I
> can get you the actual bug numbers, they are in our Opatch mini-
> database.
>
> > Any particular reason you have not gone past 10.2.0.3?
>
> Yes, a few reasons:
>
> I'm not paid to install patches to Oracle, I'm paid to provide
> reliable database resources that run no matter what.
> What we run on them is our business applications, and those have
> priority. Not the database. The business aplications only require
> Oracle 10g.
> From past experience, the quickest way to throw out the reliability of
> an Oracle installation is to install every dot patch that Oracle
> delivers.
> Unreliable services mean we're out of a job.
> So far, we've been able to provide 100% - not 99.99, not "4 9s". 100%
> = 0 (zero) unsheduled outage - in 12 instances supporting a wide
> variety of consolidated production and dev/test environments of DW,
> Hyperion, Peoplesoft, SOA/OSB, Apex and Forms applications over a
> period of nearly 4 years.
> Of course: that level of service delivery must be because we don't
> know what we're doing.
>
> In simple terms: if it's not broken, it is meeting the SLA *and* you
> do not need new db functionality, do NOT touch it.
>
> Don't blame me, blame Oracle: it's their software, I don't write it.
> And I most certainly refuse to QA it for them, for free and at the
> expense of my professional delivery and reputation.
>
> > How about the CPUs and ( just more recently ) the PSUs?
>
> How about them? Read the prior answer. As well, I add:
>
> CPUs are primarily security patches. We don't have a security
> problem.
> No, I don't care what "security experts" claim:
> we get independently security audited twice a year and so far no one
> has been able to poke through or find fault; those are the facts our
> performance is measured upon.
> Not hypothetical "web site" scenarios.
>
> (How many commercial sites do you know of that audit security that
> frequently?
> Thought so...)
>
> PSU's are too recent for me to form an opinion on them and anyway most
> do not apply to 10.2.0.3. And quite frankly: Oracle's "patch releases"
> mean nothing to me given their past history of instability.
>
> Like I said: I'm paid to provide a reliable db service. Not Oracle
> installs.
> This is not a software house or IT services company. We run a business
> that has nothing to do with software making: it just uses it. And my
> job is to make sure we use it to the most.
>
> I also back my claims with independent external audits which have
> never found a flaw in any of our processes, in the nearly 4 years I've
> been here.
> Not being condescending or anything, just stating the facts.
It's not condescending, it's just pointing up that most places aren't as well run as yours, especially when "the business" makes technical decisions, with cost considerations overriding implicit requirements for stability and uptime. My hat's off to your management, it's expensive to do it right, it's tough to find a Noons to entrust with the power.
It shows how difficult it is to advise strategy in general. Oracle must both follow and lead the "market," Dilbertesque as it may be. Individual companies must make their own decisions within a broad range of possibilities, some self-contradictory.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. To the moon, Larry! To the moon! http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20016586-239.htmlReceived on Thu Sep 16 2010 - 11:31:58 CDT