Re: About LMT's -- nice article

"Noons" <nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:Xns9325DA6B0DF0FTokenthis_at_210.49.20.254...
> Following up on JustAnotherDBA, 17 Feb 2003:
>
> > Just looked at the article real briefly, but seemed like a good article
> > overall.
>
> Of course it is.
>
>
> > Little mistakes like LMTs coming out in 8i and not 8.0 seem
> > trivial .
>
>
> But they can cause a lot of problems when the latest
> "this-release-only-expert" comes in waving it above the head
> and pointing the finger at the current dba who is stuck
> on 8.0. I've seen it happen so many times it's not even
> funny. That's why I raise the flag when I see these
> version errors in articles. They are not trivial. They are not
> caused by the authors either, in most cases.
>

I must have a shielded work environment. Haven't run into that creature too much :)

>
> > Also, to me it would seem that LMTs advantages are obvious (is
> > that much encouragement really needed?), especially when also
considering
> > they are the new default in 9i.
> >
>
>
> Of course their advantages are obvious. What is NOT obvious is
> that LMTs only became stable enough for production purposes with
> the appearance of 8.1.7.4 patch level. That is NOT that long
> ago.
>

Hmm... do you think LMTs are stable in 9iR2 ?

> Production dbas have to worry about keeping systems running.
> That's hard to do with whizz-bang stuff that is not stable.
> They are a very conservative lot, and IMHO with very good reasons!
> Goes for ANY software BTW, not just Oracle.
>

I agree. Just trying to keep up. We skipped 8.0 like a lot of people (I think).

But, not sure I want to wait until next year to go to 9iR3?

>
> > We plan on moving several databases to LMTs and 9iR2 this year which are
> > currently running 8.1.6. and 8.1.7 versions using DMTs.
>
>
> Note: you are NOT in 9i nor using LMT. Like I claimed many
> people aren't. Nothing to do with their ability to grasp 9i
> or 10i concepts. Everything to do with a stack of other things,
> among them stability.
>

Agree.

> While we are on the subject of stability: why did you wait for
> 9ir2 instead of planning for 9ir1? Stability/compatibility, eh?
>

Yep. Never ever install the first release of a major version :)

> Why not wait a few months more and go for 10i, with all
> the whizz-bang advantages promoted by Oracle? I'm sure
> you could well forget about all those niggly little boring
> dba things you have to worry about now?
> Stability/compatibility again, eh?
>

But, I would never install the first release, so I would have to wait until 10iR2 and then I could rationalize waiting for 11i and then 11iR2 and so on and so on :)

> QED.
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam
Received on Mon Feb 17 2003 - 20:17:41 CST