Re: Oracle 9.2 on RH ES 4 x86_64
- From: "Jared Still" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Steve Perry" <sperry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:20:06 -0800
I haven't yet fixed this particular problem.
Here's a very useful tip I found on one of the Oracle forums:
run this RPM query to see if all needed packages are installed.
# rpm -q --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} (%{ARCH})\n' binutils compat-db
control-center gcc gcc-c++ glibc glibc-common gnome-libs libstdc++
libstdc++-devel make pdksh sysstat libaio libaio-devel
The output should included all of the packages shown below (for an x86-64
system)
I don't know why xscreensaver and pdksh were included, as they should not
be necessary to install Oracle.
The libaio packages are definitely required.
The libaio-devel-0.3.105-2 (x86_64) package was missing
from the box I am working on. up2date would not locate it, so I
manually installed it. (libaio-0.3.105-2.x86_64.rpm)
Oracle 10gR2 will link without it, but when sqlplus tries to load it
to connect to a database, it will fail.
binutils-2.15.92.0.2-18 (x86_64)
compat-db-4.1.25-9 (i386)
compat-db-4.1.25-9 (x86_64)
control-center-2.8.0-12.rhel4.2 (x86_64)
gcc-3.4.5-2 (x86_64)
gcc-c++-3.4.5-2 (x86_64)
glibc-2.3.4-2.19 (x86_64)
glibc-2.3.4-2.19 (i686)
glibc-common-2.3.4-2.19 (x86_64)
gnome-libs-1.4.1.2.90-44.1 (x86_64)
libstdc++-3.4.5-2 (x86_64)
libstdc++-3.4.5-2 (i386)
libstdc++-devel-3.4.5-2 (x86_64)
make-3.80-5 (x86_64)
pdksh-5.2.14-30.3 (x86_64)
sysstat-5.0.5-1 (x86_64)
libaio-0.3.105-2 (i386)
libaio-0.3.105-2 (x86_64)
libaio-devel-0.3.105-2 (x86_64)
--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
On 3/20/06, Steve Perry <sperry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I can't help with the 9i, but I ran into the 10g issue before. In fact,
> the sys admin questioned whether or not Oracle was truly 64-bit or changed
> just enough to run on a 64-bit (i.e. just a marketing bullet). We also
> thought that maybe the installer was still 32-bit and that's why it required
> so many 32-bit packages.
> I'm starting to get a lot more requests for 64-bit oracle instead of
> 32-bit so please update us with what you find out.
>
> Steve
>
> On Mar 20, 2006, at 06:04 PM, Jared Still wrote:
>
>
Other related posts:
