We've done some 10g implementations, both in our labs so our software can support it, as well as some production implementations. Most of 10g seems reasonably stable, but the RAC parts seem to have a ways to go. The biggest problem we've had is that Oracle support has no idea how to support 10g RAC (which changed a great deal from 9i). Open TARs resulted in the support tech often giving us 9i advice, stuff that no longer applied in 10g. In one case, when this was pointed out, the tech admitted they had very little information on 10g RAC.
The featureset seems very nice, and the single instance 10g seems just great, but I'm very leery of opening TARs against 10g RAC.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com
On Jun 17, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Pete Sharman wrote:
<x-tad-bigger>Of course it’s stable. </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>J</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>Well, did you expect anything else? Seriously, if the downtime / testing cycle that you need to undertake with an upgrade is an issue for you, I would be inclined to skip 9i completely. The fact that you can upgrade direct from 8.1.7 to 10g and the extension of support for 8i till the end of the year was done specifically to help you do that. There are some customers for whom it is a major problem to get agreement for an upgrade, so if the product is stable and there’s no compelling reason to move to 9i (about the only one of which I can think of would be ISV support) then I would go straight to 10g.</x-tad-bigger>
