Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
Bart the bear
of the new
glibc. When ones enter "FC5 Oracle10.2" into Google, the first thing
that pops out
is the following article:
http://www.oracle-base.com/articles/10g/OracleDB10gR2InstallationOnFedora5.php
This article leads to the conclusion that there is no problem with
installing Oracle 10.2
on FC5. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was just a "draft
article" written
before the final version of FC5. This final version has new glibc which
is incompatible
with Oracle 10.2 at the moment. This article is severely misleading.
Please, do not
follow the advice and do not attemt to use FC5 as an Oracle RDBMS
server. It cannot
be done at the moment.
I looked through the article for an email address of the proud author
(someone known
as "Tim") but I couldn't find it. Therefore, I decided to publish my
warning here.
Look instead on OTN and on this group. OTN Forums for Linux and
Installation have
some good descriptions of the problem.
Jonathan Lewis
"Bart the bear" <bartt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143569190....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I see there is a facility for adding comments at
the bottom, under the link:
2 comments, read/add them...
so you could append your comment
there. It looks like the author does respond
to comments.
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/oracle_ace/ace1.html#lewis
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
Bart the bear
Mladen Gogala
> Look instead on OTN and on this group. OTN Forums for Linux and
> Installation have
> some good descriptions of the problem.
Well, as an author of one of those technical descriptions, here it is:
**************************************************************************
Registered: 3/28/99
Re: Oracle 10g R2 on FC5; ORA-12157 error on installation
Posted: Mar 28, 2006 8:42 AM in response to: mgogala in response to:
mgogala
Click to reply to this thread Reply
The problem is in Linux threads: the new GLIBC 2.4.4-4 doesn't have Linux Threads:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-July/msg00217.html
FC5 replaced it with the new thread library implementation called "NPTL".
As a result, applications which try to use the old threading methods will experience
"failure to communicate" expressed, of course, as 12157.
One possible solution is here:
http://lists.matureasskickers.net/pipermail/t2servers/2006-March/000181.html
Oracle Corp. is probably recompiling its software with new NPTL library and gcc-4.1
as we speak but it will probably not appear until RH EL5 (FC5 is a "testing ground"
for RH EL5). So, you should either downgrade to FC4 or something like CentOS or
wait until Oracle for RH EL5 hits the road. Personally, I'm downloading CentOS and
swearing at Red Hat. You can nail your NIC to a wall, it wan't change a thing. The
problem is in the new GLIBC.
I will, however, keep trying to hack the present installation until the weekend.
Any news will be promptly reported.
**************************************************************************
Since then, I downloaded an earlier glibc and unpacked it first in a
separate directory and, after that, in $ORACLE_HOME/lib/i686. It didn't
work.
Basically, FC5 intentionally broke the compatibility with the old
code, without telling anybody, just to get users to go to FC5. I will
switch from FC5 to CentOS. This is the way to have a supported version
of Oracle and inflict the maximal damage on Red Hat. Not only will I not
be a free tester for their product, I will use the enterprise version
for free. That is the minimum that I can do after what Red Hat has put
me through.
$ md5sum -c md5sum.dvd.asc
CentOS-4.3-i386-binDVD.iso: OK
It accepts any rpm for RH EL4 and will do just fine. What annoys me
the most is the way Red Hat has done it: no application testing,
no announcements, nothing. FC5 was designed as a trap waiting for
the innocent "testers" to fall into it. All the features that are in
FC5 now will be in RH EL5 in 6 months and, consequently, in the next
CentOS clone. After this experience with FC5, my advice for anybody
who would use Fedora for Oracle server is to reconsider. You will be an
unpaid tester for the vendor who doesn't even value enough to warn
you about the problem. As for the article mentioned in the beginning of
the thread, I read it before downloading FC5 and was convinced that
everything will be OK. The article is seriously misleading and should be
withdrawn with an apology to all those who lost some serious time
believing into claims made by the author. A week of FC5 actually being
in the wild was more then enough for the author to re-test and correct
his claims. When this wasn't done, warning on this group is completely
in order. Nobody else needs to lose sleep over @#$%! Fedora Core 5.
Mladen Gogala
> I see there is a facility for adding comments at
> the bottom, under the link:
>
> 2 comments, read/add them...
>
> so you could append your comment
> there. It looks like the author does respond
> to comments.
The article is seriously misleading. I read it before downloading FC5 and
losing some serious time on configuration and hacking it. The author
should have retracted it by now. He still hasn't done so, therefore a
warning here is in order and will, probably, lower the number of possible
victims.
Bob Jones
"Mladen Gogala" <gog...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.29....@sbcglobal.net...
While your compaints are legit, Red Hat should not be the one to blame.
After all it is not their web site. Any time you want to experiment with
unsupported combinations, you are at your own risk, unfortunately.
Mladen Gogala
> While your compaints are legit, Red Hat should not be the one to blame.
> After all it is not their web site. Any time you want to experiment with
> unsupported combinations, you are at your own risk, unfortunately.
Well, it was a tacit understanding that things will work with some
hacking, if needed. I successfully installed various versions of Oracle on
FC2,FC3 & FC4. I expected it to continue with FC5, especially after that
misleading article. This is the first version completely and utterly
incompatible with Oracle (I never touched FC1, so I don't know about that).
Red Hat also deserves a full share of blame for idiotic things like this:
[root@medo ~]# newaliases
hash map "Alias0": unsafe map file /etc/aliases.db: Permission denied
WARNING: cannot open alias database /etc/aliases
Cannot create database for alias file /etc/aliases
[root@medo ~]# whoami
root
[root@medo ~]#
Of course, makemap no longer works, as it says in the manual:
Notice: do not use makemap to create the aliases data base, because
newaliases puts a special token into the data base that is required by
sendmail.
FILES
/etc/aliases The mail aliases file
So, may annoyance with FC5 is multi-pronged. Also, WEP module doesn't work
with orinoco_plx. The card works, it gets the IP address from the DHCP
server and stops working. When I remove WEP, the card magically starts
working. (Of course I have MAC filtering, too).
All things considered, FC5 is a very, very disappointing version. The new
compiler breaks linux-wlan, NVIDIA driver needs heavy patching and
pre-stable kernel, while OSS sound software cannot be installed. Do they
test the software or they just let us test it? Well, they just lost one
"tester".
Tim...
The article you are referring to was clearly labelled as a draft
article. You only know it exists because Google has indexed it and made
it available on a Google search.
I never claimed it worked against the final version of FC5, afterall,
it was written prior to the final release.
May I suggest in future:
1) You read my articles fully, then you will not be lead down the
garden path by "draft" documents.
2) You take time to examine my site, where you will find a "comments"
section at the end of each article, a "forum" and a "contact
ORACLE-BASE.com" section. Most people seem capable of finding some way
of contacting me directly.
3) If you had taken more than a cursory glance at the site, you would
have seen a "Site Info" page that explains who I am (someone known as
"Tim") and why I do the site. To summarize, I do it for me! If you like
it fine! If you don't, it's no skin off my nose!
4) After someone has hand-held you through the process of contacting
me, you could attempt to leave a more pleasant message. You know
nothing about me, but I kow a lot about you now :)
Cheers
Tim...
PS. I've amended the comments at the start of the article. I assume you
will no longer fall into the the trap of thinking that "DRAFT" means
"Finished and working" now!
Tim...
"Serious Misleading" - No! It was a draft article and it clearly stated
so! Misleading would be if I had claimed it was a finished article that
worked against the production release of FC5. I did not!
"The author should have retracted it by now." - It's a draft. Why
should I retract a draft article. It does not, and never did, claim to
be anything it is not.
"still hasn't done so" - Are you yanking my chain? I'll give you a time
line:
1) I write the "draft" article ages ago!
2) I get a comment from Bart at "2006-03-28 20:06:52".
3) I get a comment from you at "2006-03-29 04:19:46".
4) I check my mail this morning and see both comments for th first
time.
5) I waste time replying to your pointless belly aching because you
guys don't have the presence of mind to understand the phrase "THIS IS
A DRAFT DOCUMENT" means something different to "This is a complete and
fully functional example".
6) I add some stronger comments to the start of the document!
Perhaps I should add a draft point (7):
7) "Draft": I actually download the final release of FC5 and test my
"draft" articles. By the way, there are two of them. Perhaps you need
to start a thread complaining about the second one also!
It is still less that 24 hours since the original comment was made and
I've made my response. I think this is pretty darn quick.
Perhaps you guys should think twice before yo start criticising other
people. In my opinion, the way you've handled this issue is completely
unreasonable.
Get a life!
Tim...
Mladen Gogala
> "Serious Misleading" - No! It was a draft article and it clearly stated
> so! Misleading would be if I had claimed it was a finished article that
> worked against the production release of FC5. I did not!
I wouldn't have attempted the installation, had I read anything about the
problems. There is much more serious problem then few changes to white
space or new line in gennttab.
Mladen Gogala
> Perhaps you guys should think twice before yo start criticising other
> people. In my opinion, the way you've handled this issue is completely
> unreasonable.
>
> Get a life!
Tim, no hard feelings, but I was not the only one. I saw your response to
a guy on OTN Linux forum. As for getting a life, it's a hard thing to do.
First, I had to get my networking to work. Then sound and email. Then
video driver (NVIDIA doesn't work without heavy patching and unreleased
kernel). This weekend, it's all over again. I may get a life, after I get
my RDBMS working.
Tim...
document ie. a work in progress.
I did not present it as a new article. It never appeared on my "Latest
Articles" section on my front page or in an XML feed. You read it
because google will index any old crap it ever gets its hands on.
If I had intended people to read it I would have started with, "this is
what I tried but it didn't work", or something like that.
I can't speak for other sites, but if you see an article on my site
that mentions the word draft anywhere in the title or first paragraph,
don't bother following the instructions. It's a work in progress and
you have been directed to it by accident!
Cheers
Tim...
Tim...
Cheers
Tim...
Mladen Gogala
> Fair enough.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim...
New kernel was out today, re-ran the oracle installation, no luck. My
system is still scheduled for downgrade to CentOS on Friday.
Tim...
it's stable and works with enterprise software. I'm currently using
CentOS 4.x.
I use VMware to run other operating systems, including Windows and FCx.
This is part of the reason I'm having trouble testing FC5, because it
doesn't work as a guest operating system very well in VMware.
I never do any software installations on my base OS. If I want to run
Oracle, it gets installed on a virtual machine. That way I don't risk
messing up my whole box.
VMware Server is now free. I'm using the beta and it works fine.
Perhaps you may want to consider that option?
Cheers
Tim...