RE: Heads Up on Grid Control 10.2

  • From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "ORACLE-L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:23:46 -0400

I think people get freaked out at the clutter and overall management of
that, not to mention coping with patchsets that change more than just
the binary ORACLE_HOME.  When properly managed - automated, scripted,
process-driven, disciplined, whatever, I think that's the key to making
that successful.  While many of the people on this list are disciplined,
I think there are a lot of people out there who are not, especially
given the chaotic, complex environments everyone is dealing with.  This
drives companies to make the default standard to just patch in place and
deal with the results, as it's a little easier to wrap your mind around.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 3:15 PM
> To: Allen, Brandon; ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Heads Up on Grid Control 10.2
>  >>>We usually apply the patchset directly to the existing 
> >>>ORACLE_HOME - but on the *test* server first.  Then, when 
> we're done 
> >>>with testing we apply the patchset directly to the production 
> >>>ORACLE_HOME.  If we didn't have a separate test server, 
> then yes, I 
> >>>would follow your approach of creating a second O_H for testing on 
> >>>the production box.
> No, what I'm saying is install another previous rev Home on 
> production, apply the patchset to it and then bring over 
> goodies from the old previous rev home, finally, abandon the 
> previous rev home. This even after testing on a test system.
> Is that weird?
> DISLAIMER: "Production" to me is not typical IT (datacenter). 
> I work in an engineering orgnaization and production to me 
> means I am able to work on my products.
> --
> //

Other related posts: