Oracle 9iR2 32bit on windows 2003 server 64bit
marco
I've been requested to install Oracle 9i R2 32bit on windows 2003
server (enterprise) 64 bit running on a AMD architecture.
Looking at compatibility matrix on metalink, it seems that this is not
a supported scenario.
Moreover, the FAQs indicate that it is possible to run Oracle 9i 32bit
on AMD 64 bit hardware running windows 2003 32 bit. Anyway, our client
"needs" both windows 64b and oracle 9i.
Now the question: has anyone ever installed and used the original
requested configuration (like the subject of this post)??
Suggestion??
thank you very much in advance.
M.
news.verizon.net
"marco" <mpu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2531143-5fb0-482c...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
run faster?) Oracle won't use the extra memory in the machine. It can't
address it. If Oracle does not support the configuration what is the client
going to do when they call support and Oracle says "We don't support that
combination. Please install into a supported configuration and then we will
support you." I hope they aren't niave enough to think that 1. Oracle won't
say that. 2. They can brow beat the Support Tech/manager etc. into giving
them support anyway. 3. They won't ever have to call support. Isn't their
data important to them?
Jim
marco
> "marco" <mpu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2531143-5fb0-482c...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> run faster?) Oracle won't use the extra memory in the machine. It can't
> address it. If Oracle does not support the configuration what is the client
> going to do when they call support and Oracle says "We don't support that
> combination. Please install into a supported configuration and then we will
> support you." I hope they aren't niave enough to think that 1. Oracle won't
> say that. 2. They can brow beat the Support Tech/manager etc. into giving
> them support anyway. 3. They won't ever have to call support. Isn't their
> data important to them?
> Jim
Firstly let me say that I totally agree with you Jim.
The reason for the requirement is that oracle will run in a cluster.
The application has been written for Oracle 9i.
In the same cluster will run another software that needs win 2003 64
bit, so the
solution, in my opinion could be to upgrade the application to 10 g or
to install
it in a different cluster.
But, as you can guess, both the solutions aren't up to me, as I act as
consultant, I only can
give advices, but cannot take decisions by myself.
M.
gym dot scuba dot kennedy at gmail
Ironic. So they want to run in a cluster presumably for High Availability
(good idea) but they want to use an unsupported configuration. 10G is not
the new kid on the block so any excuse that it is a first release product
won't wash. One method we use in our group when stupid choice is being made
is to have the person making the choice do the following:
1. In front of the group while repeating the"sub-optimal"decision out loud
hold their right hand up.
2. Repeat the "sub-optimal" decision statement (and concequences) slowly,
loudly and one time for each finger on their right hand.
3. If they still agree to go forward then go forward.
It is amazing what it does. (sounds stupid to do it, but it sounds even
stupider to say the "sub-optimal"decision out loud in front of everyone even
if they agree with the course of action.
I am going to guess here that it is an off the shelf application and that
the application's vendor is stating the Oracle version requirement. (Could
be that the vendor hasn't upgraded their queries from rule based to cost
based and there isn't a rule based optimizer in 10G. The queries would
probably run fine, but again it is a CYA move.) If it is an application
vendor's requirement ot run Oracle 9 then I would point out there is an
implicit requirement to run Oracle on a supported platform. The vendor
isn't going to support Oracle running on an unsupported configuration any
more than Oracle would.
It is possible that MS has improved the cluster capabilities in 2003.(and
you can't get the cluster stuff in plain 32 bit? seems odd, but I am not an
MS expert ) However the basic capabilities a few versions ago caused some
challenges with running an Oracle db. The disk subsystem was shared between
the two machines. If machine one got too busy and could not respond to the
heart beat then machine 2 took over the disks and chaos insued. Oracle on
instance 1 would mark the files as needing recovery because something
"touched" the db files. (it didn't know instance on machine 2 was doing the
touching) The other thing was if machine 1 rebooted then machine 2 would
take over and when machine 1 came on line again it would try to sieze the
disks and again chaos would ensue. So the coordination was manual. This
was on an older version of MS's software very pre 2003; so things may have
improved.
Why not go with RAC? (or data guard) I bet the vendor's application is not
certified for RAC. RAC is a great amplifier of bad code. So if the
application does not use bind variables etc. RAC would only make it worse.
Jim
marco
> certified for RAC. RAC is a great amplifier of bad code. So if the
> application does not use bind variables etc. RAC would only make it worse.
>
> Jim
Well,
probably I'm going OT, but the discussion seems interesting.
Let me explain a typical Italian scenario:
customer A needs two software, let's say software 1 and s/w 2, sold by
vendor 1 and vendor 2.
He don't know anything about hardware solutions, software
requirements,
compatible problems...he only know that he needs s/w 1 and 2.
He asks to its IT partner, company B, to provide an ALL IN ONE offer:
h/w, SAN (yes...SAN), s/w, Db server, installation, configuration,
training.
Well, company B contacts vendor 1 and 2 to have their requirements. In
this case these has been
Oracle 9i and windows 2003 server 64 bit (why?? I don't know!).
Company B does not have internally all skills required to install
hardware, SAN, Oracle, windows cluster and so on, so
contacts lots of external consultants that DO the jobs. I'm one of
these consultants.
Could you figure out how difficult is to manage situations like this?
I spent the last one hours and half at phone, trying to explain to
company A managers
that should be better to have a conference call tomorrow, with both
vendor 1 and vendor 2
to find a cross solution.
I didn't considered RAC mainly because I don't know the application
that will
run at all, so I cannot give advices in this direction. Of course I
agree with you
regarding all your considerations......
M.
gym dot scuba dot kennedy at gmail
M.
I feel for you. That is a tough one. I worked for a company that did
electronic medical records in the mid 1990's. Very few Doctor's offices had
networks. They had billing machines, but no LAN. We didn't sell hardware,
we didn't want to sell hardware. Customers insisted on a turn key solution.
So we partnered with a large reputable large manufacture of computers and
medical equipment. (you can guess which one, people usually refer to them
with two letters.) They are world wide, they have a reputation for high
quality machines and customer satisfaction. In those days a 2 gig drive was
about $2,000. Disk drive prices were falling fast. This manufacurer had
purchased a lot of 2 gig drives and so their inventory for 2 gig drives was
priced at $2,000. The Doctors wanted a turn key solution. So we offered
one. Of course, it included installing the network and all the machines and
service. We were not making anything off the machines or the installation
or service. We made sure the recommended machines would work with our
application and certified the whole thing. Inevitable, the Dr.'s son in law
would say he could install the network and build machines cheaper than this
large manufacturer. (which was true if you ignore the quality isues and the
disk drive prices, new 2 gig disk drives were about $1,000 and the vendor's
were $2,000). So the Dr. wanted the software discounted in order to compete
with the hardware price differential. (The large manufacture did give our
customer's excellent service and excellent machines. They were a good
partner.)
I am supporting a RAC cluster currently and it is a complex environment. I
wouldn't suggest jumping into it blindly. (It doesn't sound like you would.)
I wish you the best of luck and hope that your professionalism is recognized
by the client. I hope they listen to you, recognize your expertise and use
it to get the job done right. (trust you) They will benefit in the long run
and that should benefit you in the long run also. (sanity, money, and job
satisfaction)
Sincerely,
Jim
Michael Austin
The question about the configuration is moot because the version (9i) is
desupported. The one question you should have the company ask the 9i
vendor would be "Why are you still running on an unsupported version of
Oracle?" Oracle 9i is in DESUPPORT therefore the vendors application
is completely unsupportable. Period.
Is the company you work for willing to pay extra $$$ to Oracle for
"extended" support - for which you will receive very little in return?
If not, is the vendor willing to pay for that extended support? If not,
then they need to find another vendor. The company I work for has
changed vendors mid-project because the third-party vendor could not
support 10g.
It is beyond me how companies allow their "COTS" package vendors assign
risk and sometimes being forced to spend unnecessary dollars to Oracle
for support to ensure the COTS vendor's package can run. This is insanity.
marco
I had the conference this morning.
They chosen to install windows 32bit just to use Oracle 9i.
Do you believe??
Well, all done, this week I'll install oracle and fail safe.
Do you think that they really understood the nightmare could happen
if something go wrong in the database?
I think they DO NOT!!
Anyway thank you very much Michael and Jim for your suggestions.
Regards
M.