Import problems on Windows Server
zigz...@yahoo.com
many hours. 1st time I ran import, it "finished". When I looked at
import log file, it did not complete import of all the tables.
Verified that whatever tables specified in import are the only tables
imported in database.
Deleted all the objects in schema and redid import. This time it went
beyond last time, import log file showed more tables. But then import
stopped writing to log file, however import was still going on. I
looked in database it has all the tables, views etc, so import
seems successful. Why import log was not updated? Import log time
stamp shows that lwriting to log was stopped 10 hours ago. Imp
process was still running,
I do not see any error messages written to alert log file or in
Windows event logs. What is going on? I have done import on Windows
server on several other databases, did not encounter such problems in
the past.
DA Morgan
I've never seen this behavior but then I never run Oracle on Windows
for production. From that you may be able to draw your own conclusion. <g>
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
sybr...@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>I've never seen this behavior but then I never run Oracle on Windows
>for production. From that you may be able to draw your own conclusion. <g>
Come on, Daniel, Oracle on Windows isn't that bad.
I don't recognize the problems of the OP.
However he is running a desupported version of Oracle on a desupported
version of Windows and one can only hope he has applied all his
service packs and his daily patches ;)
In that case it'll probably work, provided he says the B word, and
donates to the William H Gates Foundation in due time.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
Niall Litchfield
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info/services
Niall Litchfield
> I've never seen this behavior but then I never run Oracle on Windows
> for production. From that you may be able to draw your own conclusion. <g>
The logical one being here that you are saying you don't have the
relevant experience? I'm reminded of the recent oracle.com blog that
recommended a tuning book despite the author professing that Oracle
tuning was not her area of expertise.
joel garry
Are you running out of disk space? You might have preextended your
tablespaces so there is room there, but no room to write the log?
Then later, you couldn't write archived logs, freezing the db? Imp
waiting for db to unfreeze so it can continue? Do you have quotas?
Do you have large redologs? Fragmented disk misleading you about
space available? DMT's? Autoextend? Trying to reload slightly
larger objects than the ones they replaced?
If all else fails, maybe you need to drop user, drop tablespace,
shutdown Oracle, defragment disk, recreate ts, etc.
(I welcome any critique here.)
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24932
cleveridea
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
Then why waste your time posting on this thread? Enjoy hearing your
own voice?
zigz...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I logged on the server using Remote Desktop.In my company so many
production databases have been setup on WIndows Server because of its
low cost. I have not heard major problems. I am still perplexed why
import log stopped
while import ran successfully.
Tony Rogerson
> for production. From that you may be able to draw your own conclusion. <g>
That's what happens when you close your eyes and enter a state of Denial
Again Morgan.
NT 3.51 and 4.0 where pretty hard to use; I've worked for many folks who got
there money's worth out of their investment tho which is what matters to the
business.
2003, 2003 R2 are very different products - it's a pitty you've closed your
eyes to them; but please - keep your misconceptions and myths to yourself
and stop migrating your myths/misconceptions from a very early version onto
the current version - pretty much like you do with SQL Server.....
--
Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
http://sqlserverfaq.com
[UK SQL User Community]
Frank van Bortel
Hash: SHA1
zigz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I logged on the server using Remote Desktop.In my company so many
> production databases have been setup on WIndows Server because of its
> low cost. I have not heard major problems. I am still perplexed why
> import log stopped
> while import ran successfully.
>
Oops - buggy product! Not supported!
Messes with your environment variables.
Start like mstsc -v:servernaam /F -console.
When you use that, you not only take over
the console (leaving the operator clueless),
but it then pick up the correct
environment settings.
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/278845
- --
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFG/Ts3Lw8L4IAs830RAkCzAJ4oQrE+APq8FI3feNQKZXROpozV7QCdFPUd
Eu+LIAkWzmY7zADylJ/xyWE=
=QgIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
joel garry
> > I've never seen this behavior but then I never run Oracle on Windows
> > for production. From that you may be able to draw your own conclusion. <g>
>
> That's what happens when you close your eyes and enter a state of Denial
> Again Morgan.
>
> NT 3.51 and 4.0 where pretty hard to use; I've worked for many folks who got
> there money's worth out of their investment tho which is what matters to the
> business.
>
> 2003, 2003 R2 are very different products - it's a pitty you've closed your
> eyes to them; but please - keep your misconceptions and myths to yourself
> and stop migrating your myths/misconceptions from a very early version onto
> the current version - pretty much like you do with SQL Server.....
>
I've been on every version from whatever it was when the IBM PC first
came out to XP. Each time I try to give it a fair try. Each time it
bitch-slaps me. I use XP 8-12 hours a day. I'm not happy about it.
I'm glad most of the work is just using X or browsers to get to real
servers. I have no choice about mail and app clients and OS at
customers.
I sometimes think about putting up an "X days with no Microsoft
problems" sign on my cube. I could do it with a 1 and a 0, without
using binary. But the guy whose job it is to deal with those problems
is a nice guy and doesn't deserve it.
I bought a couple of 500G Buffalo drives for backing stuff up at home
(couple of XP computers). It came with Memeo autobackup software.
The first time I used the backup, it died with a misleading error.
After some back-and-forth on their forum, eventually figured out it
was because Buffalo ships the drive formatted FAT-32, and Memeo was
trying to write a 4.5G file. Many questions about this on the board
and an answer in the FAQ which had no mention of this obvious and
stupid problem. Memeo leaves mysterious file handles open even after
you kill it off, making for some interesting issues trying to
reformat. Buffalo docs say to use their reformatting facility, which
doesn't have NTFS as an option. This is typical for most vendors in
the MS world and products from MS. At least, that has been my
experience over and over for more than a quarter century. Maybe it is
skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
money to give at least a modicum of quality?
Why should I think SQL Server, especially newer features trying to
catch up with what Oracle has had users pounding on for years, should
be any different? Whether Dan is biased or coming from a position of
knowledge, I agree with his sentiment.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Niall Litchfield
>> How are you logged onto the server? At the physical console?
>>
>> --
>> Niall Litchfield
>> Oracle DBAhttp://www.orawin.info/services- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I logged on the server using Remote Desktop.In my company so many
> production databases have been setup on WIndows Server because of its
> low cost. I have not heard major problems. I am still perplexed why
> import log stopped
> while import ran successfully.
>
remote desktop is a technology that is not especially suited to long
running operations - I'd use vnc or just plain at for that. I can do
pretty much anything I like to my production servers remotely - but I
don't trust remote desktop to deal well with iffy network comms, client
desktops going into sleep mode and a number of other things. let the imp
run actually on the server and poll the log file periodically.
zigz...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> zigzag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> How are you logged onto the server? At the physical console?
>
> >> --
> >> Niall Litchfield
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I logged on the server using Remote Desktop.In my company so many
> > production databases have been setup on WIndows Server because of its
> > low cost. I have not heard major problems. I am still perplexed why
> > import log stopped
> > while import ran successfully.
>
> remote desktop is a technology that is not especially suited to long
> running operations - I'd use vnc or just plain at for that. I can do
> pretty much anything I like to my production servers remotely - but I
> don't trust remote desktop to deal well with iffy network comms, client
> desktops going into sleep mode and a number of other things. let the imp
> run actually on the server and poll the log file periodically.
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBAhttp://www.orawin.info/services
I suspect that is the cause of the problem. My import took ~ 12hours
to complete (database was 40GB in size), next time I run it using at
or thorugh Windows Scheduler.
Tony Rogerson
> came out to XP. Each time I try to give it a fair try. Each time it
> bitch-slaps me. I use XP 8-12 hours a day. I'm not happy about it.
> I'm glad most of the work is just using X or browsers to get to real
> servers. I have no choice about mail and app clients and OS at
> customers.
XP is fine, so is Vista, like you I use them day in day out, around 12 hours
a day myself too - laptops and the desktop i'm writing this on.
Most of the problems are not MS at all, they are down to poorly written
drivers, bad network setups, poor Active Directory performance, admins
writing scripts and locking stuff down to the point the start screwing up
the OS, old hardware etc...
I use SQL Server on XP and Vista for writing and demo'ing stuff, I get no
problems doing this, and I push the cpu, disks etc...
Because I'm 100% SQL Server and 100% consultancy - going in where
performance is poor, client is having problems with their SQL Server, the OS
and SQL itself are fine, they are doing a lot of work and stable; it's
usually down to training, bad application design or poor archiecture etc...
that cause problems.
> I bought a couple of 500G Buffalo drives for backing stuff up at home
> (couple of XP computers). It came with Memeo autobackup software.
> The first time I used the backup, it died with a misleading error.
> After some back-and-forth on their forum, eventually figured out it
> was because Buffalo ships the drive formatted FAT-32, and Memeo was
> trying to write a 4.5G file. Many questions about this on the board
> and an answer in the FAQ which had no mention of this obvious and
> stupid problem. Memeo leaves mysterious file handles open even after
> you kill it off, making for some interesting issues trying to
> reformat. Buffalo docs say to use their reformatting facility, which
> doesn't have NTFS as an option. This is typical for most vendors in
> the MS world and products from MS. At least, that has been my
> experience over and over for more than a quarter century. Maybe it is
> skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> money to give at least a modicum of quality?
I think the clue here is that the default for XP and Vista is NTFS and if
buffalo's apps don't support that then it is a reflection on the guys who
make buffalo's software rather than Microsoft.
When you have a problem with your car do you blame the people who made the
road?
> skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> money to give at least a modicum of quality?
Buffalo isn't MS, I do like the direction MS are taking with software
certification - driver signing, Vista/ Windows 2003 certified etc...
personally, I'd not buy nor install stuff that don't have these
certifications.
> Why should I think SQL Server, especially newer features trying to
> catch up with what Oracle has had users pounding on for years, should
> be any different? Whether Dan is biased or coming from a position of
> knowledge, I agree with his sentiment.
The newer features are there because customers and folk in the community
like me asked for them, they aren't creating features to catch up with
oracle, stability is there, give it another 3 - 4 years and measure the two
database products and their positions - it will be very interesting, I know
I chose the correct product when I moved away from DB2 and could do oracle
(well, I did it for 3 months) or SQL Server.
You don't have to think, just check the independant stats - ORacle is no
longer the lead DB on Windows, it's SQL Server; I think ORacle realise that,
why else would they delay there recently launched version only bringing a
linux version out?
Anyway, it would seem you are starting to bash MS just for the sake of it
rather than being balanced on your opinion, all too often with a number of
oracle dba's - what is it with the attitude? Reminds me of the 17th century
and missionaries trying to convert the masses to a specific doctrine.
hpuxrac
If there is not an entry in the import log aka "import terminated with
no errors" or "import terminated with errors" ... and the imp process
is still running ... then you need to figure out what is going on
exactly.
This is not ( necessarily ) a windows versus unix problem it is just a
basic oracle problem.
What was/is the import process waiting on exactly? It is the usual
session based diagnostic approach that can be followed here.
Maybe you are in archivelog mode and you are out of space?
Not surprised exactly that Captain Morgan throws in the usual not
relevant bashing approach.
hpuxrac
Sorry I forgot to note that also possibly this error may have been
found and fixed by oracle since you are running 9.2.0.6 if it is
oracle software related and not something specific to the database
specifically you are running against.
zigz...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
anywhere (n alet log, event log etc..). As I said when I look in OEM
all tables, viewe etc were imported, it is just that import log did
not show that. Also, import process did not die (as shhown in task
manager).
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>Anyway, it would seem you are starting to bash MS just for the sake of it
>rather than being balanced on your opinion, all too often with a number of
>oracle dba's - what is it with the attitude? Reminds me of the 17th century
>and missionaries trying to convert the masses to a specific doctrine.
This is just the same old hypocrite drivel you have always posted
here.
You are not posting a balanced opinion, you are posting mere
*propaganda*.
Your propraganda basically boils down to
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are saints.
Microsoft never ever makes any mistake,etc,etc, etc.
Care to remember how NT4 SP3 replaced Winsock 1 by Winsock2 and
Winsock2 broke Sqlnet2?
Any explanation why Mickeysoft Windows caused the software of a
competitor to stop working?
Care to remember how many sysadmins are involved with rolling out
patches?
Care to remember Microsoft is still making use of iillegal practices
to break the competition?
Care to remember how Microsofts ODBC driver for Oracle doesn't support
any feature of Oracle beyond 7.3?
Could you please stop posting this drivel and go away here?
No one here is visiting any Microsoft forum to bash sqlserver.
Why do you visit this forum with the sole purpose to bash Oracle?
Any explanations? Any apologies?
Or are you just so much brainwashed, you don't have a 'balanced
opinion' anymore? Even the words 'balanced opinion' are hypocrite,
because the only a pro-Mickeysoft opinion can be 'balanced'
If there is anyone trying to convert the masses to a specific
doctrine, it is the reincarnation of Sauron, Bill Gates,
and you are just one of his ringwraiths.
*You* are the one who is trying to convert the masses to a specific
doctrine, Tony Rogerson, just be frank and admit it or get lost.
Tony Rogerson
focus on business needs rather than muck spreading, myth spreading and just
bashing products because you've bought into a specific doctrine.
If that upsets you then you have some problems, actually, more than some.
And frankly, you will see me pop up on this 'PUBLIC' forum because I believe
in freedom of speech; and the trigger for me to post a reply is any
un-educated doctrine/myths spread about topics that I'm fully knowledgable
about.
For my reply to hit such a nerve means you know I'm right ;)
DA Morgan
> For my reply to hit such a nerve means you know I'm right ;)
Actually no. It means you are rude.
Do you get your kicks walking up to mothers and telling them
their children are ugly.
The point has been made before. No one from this Oracle forum is
so rude as to post their attitudes about Microsoft or Windows or
SQL Server in the SQL Server forum. You don't come off as knowledgeable.
You don't come off as important. You don't come off as informed. You
come off as rude. Uncivil and rude.
When you are willing to address why Microsoft's ODBC drivers for
Oracle don't support Oracle functionality perhaps we might think
differently of you. Ignoring Sybrand's points just emphasizes that
your purpose is to be a troll.
Tony Rogerson
> Winsock2 broke Sqlnet2?
NT4 was what, 10 years ago+ ? Check back to my reply to Denial Again Morgan
for my thoughts on that OS.
> Any explanation why Mickeysoft Windows caused the software of a
> competitor to stop working?
>
Because the competitor used stuff, undocumented stuff, they weren't suppose
to.
>
> Care to remember how many sysadmins are involved with rolling out
> patches?
What, you mean Windows Updates? From my experience since they introduced
Windows Updates for Windows 2000 and 2003 not that many.
Most sys admins spend time on networking problems and the like.
Do you have figures to back up your statement (url please) or is it, yet
again, another myth?
>
> Care to remember Microsoft is still making use of iillegal practices
> to break the competition?
Don't care; I'm not here to defened MS; I'm here to correct the crap you and
DA post about stuff you don't want to accept.
>
> Care to remember how Microsofts ODBC driver for Oracle doesn't support
> any feature of Oracle beyond 7.3?
More myth spreading rubbish, do you not realise people can research using
the internet now?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q244661/
From Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) version 2.5 and later versions,
both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i with
the following limitations: . Oracle 8.x-specific data types, such as CLOB,
BLOB, BFILE, NCHAR, NCLOB, and NVARCHAR2, are not supported.
. The Unicode feature against Oracle 7.x and 8.x servers is not supported.
. Multiple Oracle client instances, or multiple Oracle homes, are not
supported because they rely on the first occurrence of the Oracle home in
the SYSTEM PATH variable.
. Returning multiple resultsets from a stored procedure or batch SQL
statement is not supported using ADO or OLEDB. For additional information
about how to retrieve a resultset from an Oracle stored procedure, click the
following article numbers to view the articles in the Microsoft Knowledge
Base:
>
> Could you please stop posting this drivel and go away here?
>
No, if I see a post that mentions a technology I am knowledable in and
disagree with a reply I will post a response - that my dear pal is called
freedom of speech.
> No one here is visiting any Microsoft forum to bash sqlserver.
> Why do you visit this forum with the sole purpose to bash Oracle?
>
I don't bash oracle, I readdress the rubbish specific to what you or Denial
Again Morgan has posted - get used to it or stop posting myths etc...
> Any explanations? Any apologies?
> Or are you just so much brainwashed, you don't have a 'balanced
> opinion' anymore? Even the words 'balanced opinion' are hypocrite,
> because the only a pro-Mickeysoft opinion can be 'balanced'
I have a balanced business view with the overriding concern for my client
making money and staying in business and also having the competitve edge
over their competition.
>
> If there is anyone trying to convert the masses to a specific
> doctrine, it is the reincarnation of Sauron, Bill Gates,
> and you are just one of his ringwraiths.
I'm not trying to convert anybody to any doctrine, like I've stated several
times already, when I see something I disagree with or know is not true I
will post a response - that is freedom of speech, I realise you don't like
that concept but get used to it.
> *You* are the one who is trying to convert the masses to a specific
> doctrine, Tony Rogerson, just be frank and admit it or get lost.
>
Nope - don't care; you do and use whatever technolgies you feel confortable
with.
Tony Rogerson
> Winsock2 broke Sqlnet2?
NT4 was what, 10 years ago+ ? Check back to my reply to Denial Again Morgan
for my thoughts on that OS.
> Any explanation why Mickeysoft Windows caused the software of a
> competitor to stop working?
>
Because the competitor used stuff, undocumented stuff, they weren't suppose
to.
>
> Care to remember how many sysadmins are involved with rolling out
> patches?
What, you mean Windows Updates? From my experience since they introduced
Windows Updates for Windows 2000 and 2003 not that many.
Most sys admins spend time on networking problems and the like.
Do you have figures to back up your statement (url please) or is it, yet
again, another myth?
>
> Care to remember Microsoft is still making use of iillegal practices
> to break the competition?
Don't care; I'm not here to defened MS; I'm here to correct the crap you and
DA post about stuff you don't want to accept.
>
> Care to remember how Microsofts ODBC driver for Oracle doesn't support
> any feature of Oracle beyond 7.3?
More myth spreading rubbish, do you not realise people can research using
the internet now?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q244661/
From Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) version 2.5 and later versions,
both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i with
the following limitations: . Oracle 8.x-specific data types, such as CLOB,
BLOB, BFILE, NCHAR, NCLOB, and NVARCHAR2, are not supported.
. The Unicode feature against Oracle 7.x and 8.x servers is not supported.
. Multiple Oracle client instances, or multiple Oracle homes, are not
supported because they rely on the first occurrence of the Oracle home in
the SYSTEM PATH variable.
. Returning multiple resultsets from a stored procedure or batch SQL
statement is not supported using ADO or OLEDB. For additional information
about how to retrieve a resultset from an Oracle stored procedure, click the
following article numbers to view the articles in the Microsoft Knowledge
Base:
>
> Could you please stop posting this drivel and go away here?
>
No, if I see a post that mentions a technology I am knowledable in and
disagree with a reply I will post a response - that my dear pal is called
freedom of speech.
> No one here is visiting any Microsoft forum to bash sqlserver.
> Why do you visit this forum with the sole purpose to bash Oracle?
>
I don't bash oracle, I readdress the rubbish specific to what you or Denial
Again Morgan has posted - get used to it or stop posting myths etc...
> Any explanations? Any apologies?
> Or are you just so much brainwashed, you don't have a 'balanced
> opinion' anymore? Even the words 'balanced opinion' are hypocrite,
> because the only a pro-Mickeysoft opinion can be 'balanced'
I have a balanced business view with the overriding concern for my client
making money and staying in business and also having the competitve edge
over their competition.
>
> If there is anyone trying to convert the masses to a specific
> doctrine, it is the reincarnation of Sauron, Bill Gates,
> and you are just one of his ringwraiths.
I'm not trying to convert anybody to any doctrine, like I've stated several
times already, when I see something I disagree with or know is not true I
will post a response - that is freedom of speech, I realise you don't like
that concept but get used to it.
> *You* are the one who is trying to convert the masses to a specific
> doctrine, Tony Rogerson, just be frank and admit it or get lost.
>
Nope - don't care; you do and use whatever technolgies you feel confortable
with.
--
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>More myth spreading rubbish, do you not realise people can research using
>the internet now?
Do you not realise as a result of Microsoft tactics no one does their
own research, but instead are posting the same questions over and over
and over again.
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q244661/
>
>From Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) version 2.5 and later versions,
>both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i with
>the following limitations: . Oracle 8.x-specific data types, such as CLOB,
>BLOB, BFILE, NCHAR, NCLOB, and NVARCHAR2, are not supported.
>. The Unicode feature against Oracle 7.x and 8.x servers is not supported.
>. Multiple Oracle client instances, or multiple Oracle homes, are not
>supported because they rely on the first occurrence of the Oracle home in
>the SYSTEM PATH variable.
Why are you such a coward and a hypocrite NOT to admit according to
your OWN research the Mickeysoft ODBC drivers do NOT support ANY
Oracle feature beyond 7.3?
Doesn't your denial means you don't know shit about Oracle?
>. Returning multiple resultsets from a stored procedure or batch SQL
>statement is not supported using ADO or OLEDB. For additional information
>about how to retrieve a resultset from an Oracle stored procedure, click the
>following article numbers to view the articles in the Microsoft Knowledge
>Base:
>
>>
>> Could you please stop posting this drivel and go away here?
>>
>
>No, if I see a post that mentions a technology I am knowledable in and
>disagree with a reply I will post a response - that my dear pal is called
>freedom of speech.
So according your ' freedom of speech' princple you would welcome it
if I would start trolling in all the Mickeysoft newsgroups you
frequent and start bashing sqlserver?
Is that what you call free speech?
Or do you call promoting sqlserver at the expense of Oraclle 'free
speech'?
Tony Rogerson, you are just here to bash Oracle. This has nothing to
do with 'free speech', you are a troll.
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>Sybrand, yes - I admit it, my intention is clear - I'd really like folks to
>focus on business needs rather than muck spreading, myth spreading and just
>bashing products because you've bought into a specific doctrine.
>
>If that upsets you then you have some problems, actually, more than some.
Mr Rogerson, your intention is indeed quite clear: you think you can
promote sqlserver by spreading myths about Oracle,
You know exactly zilch about Oracle, so you are not entitled to a
'balanced opinion'. This is just because you don't know what you are
talking about, as you are so biased the world just stops outside
Mickeysoft.
If you don't want to recognize that, I would suggest you obtain
qualified mental help. In the mean time, it would be appreciated you
go trolling somewhere else.
Thank you
DA Morgan
>> Care to remember how NT4 SP3 replaced Winsock 1 by Winsock2 and
>> Winsock2 broke Sqlnet2?
>
> NT4 was what, 10 years ago+ ? Check back to my reply to Denial Again
> Morgan for my thoughts on that OS.
>
>> Any explanation why Mickeysoft Windows caused the software of a
>> competitor to stop working?
>>
>
> Because the competitor used stuff, undocumented stuff, they weren't
> suppose to.
This is you Tony: http://www.sql-server.co.uk/bio/bio.htm
I wanted to make sure everyone saw what a troll looks like.
You know precisely nothing of substance about Oracle and you
really should consider the impression you are making on behalf
of Microsoft. I doubt Bill Gates appreciates the public relations
created by someone so rude trolling in an Oracle usenet group.
Quite a comment about your level of professionalism: Or lack
thereof.
Tony Rogerson
> your OWN research the Mickeysoft ODBC drivers do NOT support ANY
> Oracle feature beyond 7.3?
Man - do you not understand English?
Read the KB article - what does it say?
>>From Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) version 2.5 and later
>>versions,
>>both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i with
SUPPORTS ORACLE 8i WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.....
That is a bit different from YOUR statement about it not supporting ANY
feaure beyond 7.3.
You've been caught out yet again sybrnadb, people need only follow the URL
to the MS site - its there for all to see.
It actually makes comercial sense, MS have put effort into their .NET
platform; they have OLE-DB to connect to third party databases and data
sources and SQL Native Client to connect to SQL Server, why should they put
resource into further developing ODBC when it's there are other methods to
connect to those databases? There are plenty of non MS ODBC drivers that
will connect with the various editions of non-MS databases, some of the
drivers are actually better.
Anyway, the point is - this myth you are spreading about you cannot use ODBC
against Oracle version 7.3 above is just plain rubbish, the url that
disproves your point is here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q244661/
> Doesn't your denial means you don't know shit about Oracle?
I know nothing about Oracle anymore but thats not why I'm posting, it's you
that have entered into unchartered waters with your flame against me and my
replies against DA's attempt at myth'ing some rubbish about Windows Server.
Free speech - I'm here to stay dude - get used to it; when you see a post
relating to SQL Server or Windows I'll be there with an answer to any myth
you might want to TRY and spread.
DA Morgan
>> Why are you such a coward and a hypocrite NOT to admit according to
>> your OWN research the Mickeysoft ODBC drivers do NOT support ANY
>> Oracle feature beyond 7.3?
>
> Man - do you not understand English?
>
> Read the KB article - what does it say?
>
>>> From Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) version 2.5 and later
>>> versions,
>>> both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i
>>> with
>
> SUPPORTS ORACLE 8i WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.....
Have you actually tried it? What Microsoft publishes and what actually
works do not necessarily correspond.
And while this will undoubtedly come as a shock to you 8i is paleolithic
and unsupported. 9i is obsolete and in desupport. How about the 10gR2
or 11gR1 feature sets? Oh can't go there ... someone might actually be
wanted to develop a new environment.
Now take your trolling elsewhere. For example how about posting at
c.d.ms-sqlserver given your claim to expertise. Funny we don't ever see
you offering advice there. Intimidated by someone who actually knows
something about the subject such as Erland Sommarskog?
Or perhaps all those posts from MI5Victim are yours.
Tony Rogerson
> works do not necessarily correspond.
Have you and on what version of Windows?
> And while this will undoubtedly come as a shock to you 8i is paleolithic
> and unsupported. 9i is obsolete and in desupport. How about the 10gR2
> or 11gR1 feature sets? Oh can't go there ... someone might actually be
> wanted to develop a new environment.
Should be using .NET or use a third party ODBC driver instead - why don't
Oracle supply their own?
> Now take your trolling elsewhere. For example how about posting at
> c.d.ms-sqlserver given your claim to expertise. Funny we don't ever see
> you offering advice there. Intimidated by someone who actually knows
> something about the subject such as Erland Sommarskog?
As you well know, I post in c.d.ms-sqlserver - feel free to check.
I also post in microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming.
More myth and bs spreading Denial Again Morgan!
> Or perhaps all those posts from MI5Victim are yours.
Better things to do with my time like reply to posts where you spread myth's
and miscomprehensions about stuff you don't know anything up-to-date about
aka Windows Server and SQL Server.
--
Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
http://sqlserverfaq.com
[UK SQL User Community]
"DA Morgan" <damo...@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:11911120...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
Tony Rogerson
>
> I wanted to make sure everyone saw what a troll looks like.
Thanks for the free link post - yes that is me, and for all those who have
not seen Daniel in Denial Again ->
http://www.digital-eel.com/mystery2005/images/igf2005_06_sm.jpg
> You know precisely nothing of substance about Oracle and you
Too true, I don't even pretend to know oracle which is why I only reply when
you post myths or rubbish about Windows Server or SQL Server - two products
you know very little about, well, current (ie within the last 6 years)
about.
> really should consider the impression you are making on behalf
> of Microsoft. I doubt Bill Gates appreciates the public relations
> created by someone so rude trolling in an Oracle usenet group.
As I don't work for Microsoft I really don't care - certainly isn't going to
stop my freedom of speech in replying to the rubbish and myths you try and
keep going about Windows Server and SQL Server.
Perhaps you should use one of your many (lol) contacts (lol) in Microsoft to
complain - you know, the contacts in the SQL team that haven't heard of me -
you really are an idiot on a grand scale; talking about somebody bigging
themselves up...
> Quite a comment about your level of professionalism: Or lack
> thereof.
Pot - Kettle - Black.
sybr...@hccnet.nl
>>versions,
>>both the Microsoft ODBC Driver and OLE DB Provider support Oracle 8i with
SUPPORTS ORACLE 8i WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.....
That is a bit different from YOUR statement about it not supporting
ANY
feaure beyond 7.3.
Mr. Rogerson, it is not different. It actually demonstrates a few
things
- Microsoft doesn't support any Oracle feature available in 8.0 and
higher (please *read* -if you are capable of reading that is- the
article you provided, and compare it with the datatypes Oracle
supports)
- Microsoft is yet again trying to lock in customers to use their
products. They don't recall the O in ODBC is for 'Open'.
If you don't know, Mr. Rogerson, what the word 'Open' means, please
look it up in a dictionary. You might learn something
(O, I recall, looking something up in a dictionary is too difficult
for you, as you can't even use the Oracle Master Index)
- It also shows you, Mr. Rogerson, don't have a brain, and definitely
no ethics, you are a liar and a troll.
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>> and unsupported. 9i is obsolete and in desupport. How about the 10gR2
>> or 11gR1 feature sets? Oh can't go there ... someone might actually be
>> wanted to develop a new environment.
>
>Should be using .NET or use a third party ODBC driver instead - why don't
>Oracle supply their own?
Yet again Rogerson you show you know zilch about Oracle.
Oracle does have their own ODBC drivers, and .NET drivers, and Oledb
providers.
When will you stop spreading myths about Oracle, Rogerson?
Why do you accuse Daniel Morgan about spreading myths about sqlserver,
where you are spreading myths and insults about Oracle (please refer
to you blog)?
Any explanation for that, Rogersion? Other than you have no ethics,
and are a hyprocrite and a troll?
Tony Rogerson
I'll not comment further, you are only playing with words and frankly being
a nuisance for people who actually want to discuss stuff that may well be
controversial for those people who don't like to accept realities.
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>I'll not comment further,
I notice you still fail to admit your assertion Microsoft ODBC
supports Oracle beyond 7.3 was incorrect.
You can't admit a mistake, can you?
Tony Rogerson
"Care to remember how Microsofts ODBC driver for Oracle doesn't support
any feature of Oracle beyond 7.3?"
Note the word "ANY" in your question.
Perhaps if I write in Dutch you will understand better as your English
comprehension doesn't appear to be that good.
I found you the Microsoft KB article that gives you the information you
wanted.
You stated MS ODBC didn't support ANY feature after 7.3, the KB article
states otherwise - if you cannot accept that, it's not my problem, it's a
fact there crystal clear on the MS website.
Then in another post you or Deniel Again Morgan stated Oracle have their own
ODBC drivers - great, use them, they are probably better because they will
no the hooks into Oracle better and so long as they follow the ODBC standard
then everybody is happy.
For somebody so anti-Microsoft why are you so keen to use Microsoft ODBC
drivers when your own vendor bed fellow has their own? Don't worry, an
answer is not required.
Frank van Bortel
>> This is you Tony: http://www.sql-server.co.uk/bio/bio.htm
>>
>> I wanted to make sure everyone saw what a troll looks like.
>
> Thanks for the free link post - yes that is me, and for all those who
> have not seen Daniel in Denial Again ->
> http://www.digital-eel.com/mystery2005/images/igf2005_06_sm.jpg
>
Geesh - that's what... humor?
MS humor - must be confined to one OS; species, in this case.
Frank
DA Morgan
DA Morgan
Barry Bulsara
> Microsoft Troll
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
He he
joel garry
> > I've been on every version from whatever it was when the IBM PC first
> > came out to XP. Each time I try to give it a fair try. Each time it
> > bitch-slaps me. I use XP 8-12 hours a day. I'm not happy about it.
> > I'm glad most of the work is just using X or browsers to get to real
> > servers. I have no choice about mail and app clients and OS at
> > customers.
>
> XP is fine, so is Vista, like you I use them day in day out, around 12 hours
> a day myself too - laptops and the desktop i'm writing this on.
>
> Most of the problems are not MS at all, they are down to poorly written
> drivers, bad network setups, poor Active Directory performance, admins
> writing scripts and locking stuff down to the point the start screwing up
> the OS, old hardware etc...
Ummmm... those are all things that are part of the MS mileu.
>
> I use SQL Server on XP and Vista for writing and demo'ing stuff, I get no
> problems doing this, and I push the cpu, disks etc...
>
> Because I'm 100% SQL Server and 100% consultancy - going in where
> performance is poor, client is having problems with their SQL Server, the OS
> and SQL itself are fine, they are doing a lot of work and stable; it's
> usually down to training, bad application design or poor archiecture etc...
> that cause problems.
Oddly enough, those are the same problems in the Oracle world. With
the OS exception, of course.
>
> > I bought a couple of 500G Buffalo drives for backing stuff up at home
> > (couple of XP computers). It came with Memeo autobackup software.
> > The first time I used the backup, it died with a misleading error.
> > After some back-and-forth on their forum, eventually figured out it
> > was because Buffalo ships the drive formatted FAT-32, and Memeo was
> > trying to write a 4.5G file. Many questions about this on the board
> > and an answer in the FAQ which had no mention of this obvious and
> > stupid problem. Memeo leaves mysterious file handles open even after
> > you kill it off, making for some interesting issues trying to
> > reformat. Buffalo docs say to use their reformatting facility, which
> > doesn't have NTFS as an option. This is typical for most vendors in
> > the MS world and products from MS. At least, that has been my
> > experience over and over for more than a quarter century. Maybe it is
> > skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> > money to give at least a modicum of quality?
>
> I think the clue here is that the default for XP and Vista is NTFS and if
> buffalo's apps don't support that then it is a reflection on the guys who
> make buffalo's software rather than Microsoft.
You've missed an important point (though I don't blame you, as my rant
was quite truncated): It's not Buffalo's software. It's a bundle of
software and hardware from two vendors. I would think each vendor's
engineers would be thinking the other is stupid - Memeo's engineers
being incredulous that a hardware maker would put out something that
defaults to pre-NT, and Buffalo's engineers not even considering that
a _backup software provider_ would not think to have it's software
adaptable to the operating system. That would be be MS's operating
system. I have this vision in my head that some "forward looking
upper management" would have celebrated such a "successful strategic
collaboration" that resulted from all the "hookers and blow."
>
> When you have a problem with your car do you blame the people who made the
> road?
It depends. If I'm driving in a 35MPH zone at the speed limit and hit
an unmarked pothole caused by utility companies digging up the road
and improperly filling it, breaking my new $1000 struts, I would
indeed blame them.
What would you think about this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1419/1424523619_8f353d55ee_o.jpg
>
> > skewed, but so? Am I wrong to expect people writing software for
> > money to give at least a modicum of quality?
>
> Buffalo isn't MS, I do like the direction MS are taking with software
> certification - driver signing, Vista/ Windows 2003 certified etc...
> personally, I'd not buy nor install stuff that don't have these
> certifications.
You seem to have missed a bit of controversy over what MS is doing
these days, things like not allowing software to run because their
servers are down, looking at peoples computers when they say they
don't, getting fined for their actions in a number of countries, etc,
etc. I'm not sure I've seen any driver signing work properly
recently.
>
> > Why should I think SQL Server, especially newer features trying to
> > catch up with what Oracle has had users pounding on for years, should
> > be any different? Whether Dan is biased or coming from a position of
> > knowledge, I agree with his sentiment.
>
> The newer features are there because customers and folk in the community
> like me asked for them, they aren't creating features to catch up with
> oracle, stability is there, give it another 3 - 4 years and measure the two
> database products and their positions - it will be very interesting, I know
> I chose the correct product when I moved away from DB2 and could do oracle
> (well, I did it for 3 months) or SQL Server.
I don't think what customers have asked for indicate proper feature
design and incorporation. Yes, vendors should be responsive to
customer wants, but that does not mean saddling the entire industry
with misfeatures, does not mean core functionality should be ignored
in favor of bells and whistles, does not mean you should have
everything munged together. Note that I include Oracle in this.
>
> You don't have to think, just check the independant stats - ORacle is no
> longer the lead DB on Windows, it's SQL Server; I think ORacle realise that,
> why else would they delay there recently launched version only bringing a
> linux version out?
I'm hoping the delay is like Orson Welles: Release no wine before its
time.
As to the stats: Hey, one organism, one vote! Beetles alone would
win!
>
> Anyway, it would seem you are starting to bash MS just for the sake of it
> rather than being balanced on your opinion, all too often with a number of
> oracle dba's - what is it with the attitude? Reminds me of the 17th century
> and missionaries trying to convert the masses to a specific doctrine.
Well, I can only say it so many times: I've given MS a chance for
most every major OS release since before Windows (skipped some weird
stuff like OS/2), and it has let me down. I'm still seeing problems
with the latest stuff (note I didn't even bash Vista!), and it seems
to be going in the wrong direction. If you think that's bashing just
for the sake of it, I don't really have a problem with that. Nothing
it doesn't deserve, stemming from MS' own actions. And since I
started on the same OS bg did, I know that he knew better all the way
back.
So what makes you think I'm a dba? I was an independent relational
database consultant before you had any "industrial experience."
And why do you think open standards are like the Spanish Inquisition?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/09/28/what-is-com-surrogate-crash-error/
Tony Rogerson
> database consultant before you had any "industrial experience."
Not according to this you hadn't; I started my career in IT in August 1986
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry/resumen.htm
joel garry
> > So what makes you think I'm a dba? I was an independent relational
> > database consultant before you had any "industrial experience."
>
> Not according to this you hadn't; I started my career in IT in August 1986
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry/resumen.htm
>
> --
I was independent with Beck Computer Systems most of the time with
them - it was a running joke, as they were a start-up and had
customers doing odd things. Hard to explain on a resume, harder to
explain to banks, especially where I was working two jobs. But easy
to explain to the IRS. Go figure. Then the body shops and gummint
subsubs and the onesey-twosey things I don't even bother to mention.
But you know all about that, right?
>From 1984 on I had my own PDP-11. It stopped earning its keep when I
started concentrating on Oracle, when it became obvious to me Oracle
was superior, from a business perspective, around 1989. For a long
time after I decided to concentrate on Oracle, most of my work was
heterogenous. My company has been in the yellow pages since 1984.
Sometimes other companies use it, sometimes they hire me directly,
sometimes they sub me from someone else. I could care less as long as
I get paid, though I'd rather be fulltime/perm these days, with the US
health benefit issues and all. If companies _want_ to pay me more
than they have to, that's fine by me. Oddly enough, I seem to last
longer as a temp, no one tries to make me a PHB.
I've never gotten any business from the yellow pages, just phonespam
and people trying to find someone to fix their stupid PC. But it
makes me legitimate as far as banks are concerned. Businesses just
don't look for serious consulting in the yellow pages. I have gotten
business from cdos. wtf.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Where'd the summer go?
DA Morgan
> Wow - that is one really raw exposed nerve I seem to have touched.
>
> I'll not comment further, you are only playing with words and frankly
> being a nuisance for people who actually want to discuss stuff that may
> well be controversial for those people who don't like to accept realities.
"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv.
Pretty accurate in this case (software) Engineer Rogerson.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan
>> So what makes you think I'm a dba? I was an independent relational
>> database consultant before you had any "industrial experience."
>
> Not according to this you hadn't; I started my career in IT in August 1986
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry/resumen.htm
Perhaps Joel is referring to other aspects of an IT career beyond
just occupying space and producing carbon dioxide.
21 years and what you've posted here, and your childish insults,
are the summation of your "career"? How bloody disappointing.
Shakespeare
"DA Morgan" <damo...@psoug.org> schreef in bericht
news:11912857...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
Well cited
Shakespeare.... ;-))))