RE: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
The kicker with Oracle's certified Linux platforms/versions is if you run into problems on a non-certified dist and try and get support on a problem that has nothing to do with what dist or version you're on (like errors in a shell script in OiD), they won't touch it and won't mark it as a bug to send to development. Hell, Support didn't even have a Linux box to verify my claims! Apparently, they do now. Another quirk is that you can install RH7.1 and upgrade everything else (kernel, libs, desktop, etc.) independently to bring it up to RH7.3 or whatever, and it'll still be supported. Go figure. Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA > -Original Message- > From: James J. Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 12:08 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > Subject: Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ??? > > > > > Christopher Royce wrote: > > > > Need Input: > > > > I would like to solicit real life experiences, educated > opinions, accolades > > and criticisms from those of you who have implemented or > are considering > > implementing Oracle on Linux in a business critical > production environment. > > > > We are considering both Red Hat and Suse distributions. We > have discovered > > that regardless of the Linux distribution support is generally > > expensive. That is not a particularly 'deal breaker' > determining factor .. > > BUT .. I question the quality of support, the expediency of > response and the > > 'sense of urgency' experienced in the event of a critical > application being > > down. I am familiar with limited Oracle-Linux > implementations but not to the > > 'industrial strength' degree that has been proposed (but already > > implemented) by our requesting user community. > > > > Is there a preferred distribution We already have Red > Hat and Suse > > implementations and will choose one of them as the standard > 'should we > > chose to accept this mission'. I believe that both claim to > be the preferred > > distribution by Oracle and that they are 'tier one ports' > > As for Linux distributions? While Linux is Linux (mostly), > you will probably > have fewer problems listening to Oracle's recommendation than > trying to "go it > alone" using another distro. The reason I say that is, when > Oracle tells you > that "Oracle 8.X or 9.X is certified on RedHat 7.X" they mean > that, for the most > part, if you install *THAT* distro of Linux, you should be > able to successfully > install Oracle on it. > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Jesse, Rich INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 07:28:23AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Not a "honeymoon" issue, just that Linux progresses much The Oracle support matrix says SuSE 7.2 and RH 7.1. RH flagged in the scheme about the time RH announced entry into the db market with it's PostgreSQL port. Call it what you like, your idea that "Oracle only supports Red Hat" is false. > The folks are Oracle simply aren't used to qualifying their > product that often -- and may consider RH 7.X to be a > generic platform. Maybe not === Ray Stell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (540) 231-4109 KE4TJC28^D -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Ray Stell INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
-- Ray Stell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/15/02 06:38:28 -0800 > The support matrix at metalink includes other distributions, > and does not include RH7.2, only the antique 7.1. I have > to conclude that the ora/rh honeymoon is over. They did > just add Red Hat 2.1 Advanced Server to the 9i matrix, so > maybe it's back on again. Sure wish they would pick up > RH7.2. Not a "honeymoon" issue, just that Linux progresses much faster than most product vendors are used to. If you look at the number of O/S and distro releases on Linux systems compared to, say, Solaris or HP-UX it's about 5-10x higher. The folks are Oracle simply aren't used to qualifying their product that often -- and may consider RH 7.X to be a generic platform. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647 +1 800 762 1582 -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 08:18:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ... and Oracle only supports Red Hat so that > is probably what you'll end up with. -- The support matrix at metalink includes other distributions, and does not include RH7.2, only the antique 7.1. I have to conclude that the ora/rh honeymoon is over. They did just add Red Hat 2.1 Advanced Server to the 9i matrix, so maybe it's back on again. Sure wish they would pick up RH7.2. === Ray Stell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (540) 231-4109 KE4TJC28^D -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Ray Stell INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
-- "James J. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/13/02 21:08:18 -0800 > By thw way, my preferred Distro is Mandrake. (Bear in mind that RedHat was > [and may still be] compiled to run on an 80386. Most modern CPU's have > additional features that you have to compile your software to use. Mandrake, > on the other hand, is pre-compiled for a Pentium.) [NOTE: you can always > re-compile the operating system binaries to run on a different type of CPU > with either Distro.] One of the reasons that RH now tkaes up 3 CD's is the collection of x86 platforms it supports. If Oracle doesn't claim to not support Mandrake then you might be able to get away with it; otherwise you're likley to get the Not Certified Here response and told to back off to RH 7.X. Upgrading the kernel is always a good idea since the RH distro's are multpiple rev's behind and you don't need every one of the modules they build for every system on the planet. That will give you most of the speed advantage, since you're stuck with whatever compilation Oracle gives you on its binaries anyway. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647 +1 800 762 1582 -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
Christopher Royce wrote: > > Need Input: > > I would like to solicit real life experiences, educated opinions, accolades > and criticisms from those of you who have implemented or are considering > implementing Oracle on Linux in a business critical production environment. > > We are considering both Red Hat and Suse distributions. We have discovered > that regardless of the Linux distribution support is generally > expensive. That is not a particularly 'deal breaker' determining factor .. > BUT .. I question the quality of support, the expediency of response and the > 'sense of urgency' experienced in the event of a critical application being > down. I am familiar with limited Oracle-Linux implementations but not to the > 'industrial strength' degree that has been proposed (but already > implemented) by our requesting user community. > > Is there a preferred distribution We already have Red Hat and Suse > implementations and will choose one of them as the standard 'should we > chose to accept this mission'. I believe that both claim to be the preferred > distribution by Oracle and that they are 'tier one ports' As for Linux distributions? While Linux is Linux (mostly), you will probably have fewer problems listening to Oracle's recommendation than trying to "go it alone" using another distro. The reason I say that is, when Oracle tells you that "Oracle 8.X or 9.X is certified on RedHat 7.X" they mean that, for the most part, if you install *THAT* distro of Linux, you should be able to successfully install Oracle on it. You shouldn't have to worry about tracking down a specific Kernel version to patch your particular favorite distro. And, you shouldn't have to worry about *which* version of the glibc libraries you have to track down and install. Obviously, newer versions may require you to upgrade those things to be "certified", but, you shouldn't need to worry so much about them "out the door". By thw way, my preferred Distro is Mandrake. (Bear in mind that RedHat was [and may still be] compiled to run on an 80386. Most modern CPU's have additional features that you have to compile your software to use. Mandrake, on the other hand, is pre-compiled for a Pentium.) [NOTE: you can always re-compile the operating system binaries to run on a different type of CPU with either Distro.] > My initial implementation is Suse 7.2 Enterprise on an IBM NetFinity, 4 cpu, > 2 Gbyte (memory) server using a Net Appliance Filer. There are six instances > currently up and running. Thus far there have been no occurrences of > swapping or i/o bottlenecks but then the system has yet to be fully > 'stressed' and there are scalability concerns. The USER also wants to put > Oracle 9iAS on the same box - I have managed to delay that for now, pending > further research. I have had a couple of worrying episodes where a file > system 'filled up' (on the Filer) that completely 'hung' the system > requiring a full system re-boot. Incidentally the aforementioned NetFinity > implementation is 'a given' as the six instances have already been migrated > from an aged and de-commissioned HP system. I have inherited the results and > there is no going back at this juncture. Bear in mind that if you are using a NetApp Filer, you are actually using NFS to access your filesystems. While Oracle's stance on this has changed somewhat (used to be a "never, but never, do that", now [thanks to much goading by NetApp and others] it is a 'compatible' solution). In my understanding, the previous position was taken because not all NFS servers start nfslockd and nfsstatd by default. Namely, some version of HP/UX. (They were there, and could be started, but you had to know that you needed them). Personally, accessing my datafiles (or any other Oracle component) via NFS is sub-optimal in my book. NFS is a hideously inefficient protocol and an Oracle Database can create quite a bit of NFS traffic (in the regular world, this would be just disk I/O). Additionally NFS doesn't necessarily handle some things quite as "gently" as a local filesystem would. (As you noticed, the "unavailability" of the filesystem can cause the machine to "hang"). I would recommend investigating several things: 1. Look into your NFS mount options (and any other options you can set with your NFS client). You may be able to change the NFS client's behavior, somewhat, when conditions like a full filesystem occur. 2. Turn off tablespace autoextend. This way, with the exception of archivelogs, your chances of "filling up a filesystem" are dramatically decreased. You (as a DBA) will actually have to *manage* the growth. (In case you haven't guessed, "tablespace autoextend" is a bad feature, in my book). 3. Consider disabling the NetApp's "snapshot" feature. I believe that this is on by default. (And, I'm told, allows some nice point-in-time recoverability.
Re: Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
> We are considering both Red Hat and Suse distributions. We have discovered > that regardless of the Linux distribution support is generally > expensive. That is not a particularly 'deal breaker' determining factor .. > BUT .. I question the quality of support, the expediency of response and the > 'sense of urgency' experienced in the event of a critical application being > down. I am familiar with limited Oracle-Linux implementations but not to the > 'industrial strength' degree that has been proposed (but already > implemented) by our requesting user community. The prices for 7x24 support are roughly the same for linux and Solaris, HP-UX, or AIX. One other option is to buy the linux from IBM, with support. IBM seriously wants linux to succeed on thier platforms and has good support. Linux Care and Cygnus (now part of Red Hat) have been dealing with mission-critical systems for some time and are capable of fixing things. Obviously, setting up the system in a supportable fashion (e.g., supported hardware, up to date drivers) will get you better response times. > Is there a preferred distribution Sure: Red Hat preferrs that you buy theirs, SuSE wants your money also. Beyond that the kernel -- a.k.a., "linux" -- is something you download from the net and compile locally. It has relatively little effect on the difference between distributions. The real distinctions are in SysAdmin tools and the installation. Most of it is a purely religious issue, all you can really do is set up a few machines and try them. So far as I know HP and IBM are both going with Red Hat as their base distro's and Oracle only supports Red Hat so that is probably what you'll end up with. Eyeball the available support contracts to be sure. The net result will depend heavily on the hardware you're running. For serious databases X86 platforms don't work well because of hardware limitations. You are probably better off looking at the hardware first and then finding out which software vendor is supported (probably Red Hat for HP or IBM systems). > My initial implementation is Suse 7.2 Enterprise on an IBM NetFinity, 4 cpu, > 2 Gbyte (memory) server using a Net Appliance Filer. There are six instances > currently up and running. Thus far there have been no occurrences of > swapping or i/o bottlenecks but then the system has yet to be fully > 'stressed' and there are scalability concerns. The USER also wants to put > Oracle 9iAS on the same box - I have managed to delay that for now, pending > further research. I have had a couple of worrying episodes where a file > system 'filled up' (on the Filer) that completely 'hung' the system > requiring a full system re-boot. Incidentally the aforementioned NetFinity > implementation is 'a given' as the six instances have already been migrated > from an aged and de-commissioned HP system. I have inherited the results and > there is no going back at this juncture. What file system are you running? Are you using LVM? devfs? A full system lockup in this case seems suspicious. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647 +1 800 762 1582 -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California-- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Oracle on Linux ... Production Strength ???
Need Input: I would like to solicit real life experiences, educated opinions, accolades and criticisms from those of you who have implemented or are considering implementing Oracle on Linux in a business critical production environment. We are considering both Red Hat and Suse distributions. We have discovered that regardless of the Linux distribution support is generally expensive. That is not a particularly 'deal breaker' determining factor .. BUT .. I question the quality of support, the expediency of response and the 'sense of urgency' experienced in the event of a critical application being down. I am familiar with limited Oracle-Linux implementations but not to the 'industrial strength' degree that has been proposed (but already implemented) by our requesting user community. Is there a preferred distribution We already have Red Hat and Suse implementations and will choose one of them as the standard 'should we chose to accept this mission'. I believe that both claim to be the preferred distribution by Oracle and that they are 'tier one ports' My initial implementation is Suse 7.2 Enterprise on an IBM NetFinity, 4 cpu, 2 Gbyte (memory) server using a Net Appliance Filer. There are six instances currently up and running. Thus far there have been no occurrences of swapping or i/o bottlenecks but then the system has yet to be fully 'stressed' and there are scalability concerns. The USER also wants to put Oracle 9iAS on the same box - I have managed to delay that for now, pending further research. I have had a couple of worrying episodes where a file system 'filled up' (on the Filer) that completely 'hung' the system requiring a full system re-boot. Incidentally the aforementioned NetFinity implementation is 'a given' as the six instances have already been migrated from an aged and de-commissioned HP system. I have inherited the results and there is no going back at this juncture. Your knowledge, thoughts and wisdom greatly appreciated. Thnx & OK Bye "The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability, and something is bound to come of it." -- Vannevar Bush (1945) Chris Royce [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] <>
