| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Multiple installed versions of Oracle
Hi,
I agree with other posters on this subject. I would tend to not having =
Oracle 7,8 and 9 on the same box because here we use the OMS to monitor =
the databases and this leads to issues with the dbsnmp and the fact the =
9i will not talk to 7.
Regards
Pete=20
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Tracy Rahmlow
Sent: 05 April 2005 15:55
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Multiple installed versions of Oracle
We are in the process of upgrading several databases from 8i on AIX =
4.3.3=20
to 9 on AIX 5.2 or 10g on AIX 5.2. The target version depends upon=20
whether or not the application is supported on 10g or not. If not will =
be=20
migrating toward 9.
The manager of the unix area has indicated that he has seen issues at =
his=20
previous shop with co-locating multiple versions of Oracle on the same=20
server and is basically not allowing the practice. I have never seen or =
heard of this issue, but am trying to remain open-minded to his concern. =
Here are his statements verbatim:
Several occasions where server and db crashed due to dba administering =
db=20
in an incorrect manner. IE mistook one version for the other. Applied=20
the incorrect maintenance patch to the incorrect instance.
Several occasions where db versions did not play nice together 7.3.4 and =
8i.
All occasions impacted SLA's and one instance required restore of db due =
to corrupt data.
I also contacted two DBA Manager friends and they are aware Oracle=20 supports this strategy, however, both shops have standards in place that =
do not permit this practice - due primarily to the above incidents and =
to=20
keep the environments simple / less complex. Does this make the =
planning=20
of upgrades and maintenance a little more difficult - yes, but they both =
agreed that this best practice has solved many headaches and saved many=20 hours of work.
Prior to his arrival we did have success running 7 and 8 on the same=20
server. Frankly, I do not think the restriction is warranted. So what=20
are your thoughts? And if you agree with me help me make a case for=20
changing his mind. To complicate matters, he has more authority than =
me.=20
Thanks
Tracy Rahmlow
The American Express Property Casualty companies
3500 Packerland Drive
DePere, Wisconsin 54115-9034
tel: 920-330-5164
fax: 920-330-5350
American Express made the following
annotations on 04/05/05 07:58:11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
*************************************************************************=
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient = and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not = the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of = the information included in this message and any attachments is = prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please = notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this = message and any attachments. Thank you."
*************************************************************************=
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 12:27:13 CDT
 |
 |