Re: Building a 10gR1 RAC
- From: "Suresh Chaganti" <chaganti.suresh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: anelson77388@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:14:19 -0500
Even if your current E-business is not 11.5.9 CU2, you should explore if you
can patch your e-business just enough on ATG, to be able to get it to
inter-oper with 10g R2
Thanks
Suresh
On 3/20/08, Suresh Chaganti <chaganti.suresh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 10gr2 is supported for E-business version from 11.5.9 CU2. Unless your
> e-business version is earlier than this, you can upgrade DB tier only to
> 10gR2.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
>
> On 3/20/08, Allan Nelson <anelson77388@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Here's the defining text from the note.
> >
> >
> > Oracle Applications Release 11*i* (11.5.10) has numerous configuration
> > options that can be chosen to suit particular business scenarios, uptime
> > requirements, hardware capability, and availability requirements. This
> > document describes how to migrate Oracle Applications Release 11*i*(Release
> > 11.5.10.2) running on a single database instance to a Real Application
> > Clusters (RAC) environment running Oracle database server 10g Release 2 (
> > 10.2.0.1) with Automatic Storage Management (ASM).
> >
> > Note the (Release 11.5.10.2) in the quoted text.
> >
> > We are making the change because we are currently on HP PA-RISC. HP is
> > discontinuing the platform. Our hardware comes off lease August of 2009 so
> > we have to go somewhere. HP has chosen to go with a new platform so we are
> > going to explore x86. I guess based on the feedback I'm getting here I'll
> > tell management that 10gR1 RAC is too risky.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Allan,
> > >
> > > I absolutely agree with Hemant--if you're making a significant change
> > > in
> > > architecture, presumably it is due to a business requirement for some
> > > better scalability and/or redundancy (HA) in the environment. If that
> > > assumption is correct, you'd be very wise to pick a well-supported,
> > > widely deployed release like 10g R2 instead of 10g R1. I think you'll
> > > have a much better chance at success on 10g R2 and you'll certainly
> > > find
> > > more helpful hints from mailing lists, forums, and (gasp) Oracle
> > > Support.
> > >
> > > Having said all that, I'm not an Apps DBA, but from my novice reading
> > > of
> > > section 1.2 in the note referenced below, I don't see the 11.5.10.2 is
> > > required. Maybe 11.5.10.2 is disguised as some other name that is
> > > listed
> > > there. The example that follows in section 2 does depict 11.5.10.2,
> > > but
> > > that doesn't mean that the example is using the minimums. Regardless,
> > > based on what little I know about apps, 11.5.10.2 does sound to be a
> > > Good Thing all around and something you should consider if stability,
> > > availability, and scalability are important to your business.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > Hemant K Chitale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Allan,
> > > > See MetaLink Note#362135.1 titled
> > > > "Configuring Oracle Applications Release 11i with 10g Release2 Real
> > > > Application Clusters and Automatic Storage Management"
> > > >
> > > > You should be on 11.5.10.2 -- if you ARE taking the effort to go
> > > RAC,
> > > > why not CU2 ?
> > > > CU2 would be worth it.
> > > >
> > > > Hemant K Chitale
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Other related posts:
