Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Oracle 8i Linux port on the scene 129

fatherdatabase writes "After a slight delay, Oracle finally releases a port of 8.1.5 for Linux. Requires a (free) technet account. Check it out here. " It's a free download, but they do require e-mail address, etc etc. Have fun.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle 8i Linux port on the scene

Comments Filter:
  • If you want to migrate from Sybase or indeed
    from SQLServer 6.5, there is a free migration tool
    available on the Oracle Technology Network
    Oracle Migration Workbench 1.2.2 , unfortunately
    you need access to a windoze nt/98/95 box while
    doing the migrate to Oracle 8i on Linux.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Following in the wake of the sucessful IBM Viavoice Flexi-licence(tm) Oracle Corp. was pleased to announce the release of Oracle 8i for Linux today, available under the new Flexi-licence system.

    "We place the licence in a HTML textarea to be posted when you agree. This innovative new Open Licencesing system allows our coustomers to tailor (or replace) the Oracle 8i licence in whatever way they choose, we signify our agreement by allowing you to download the software, just like users have agree to licences by opening boxes for years!" -- Unnammed Oracle marketdroid.

    When asked about the risk of users putting in clauses such as "In case of snow on the north pole, all of oracles assets goto user" the oracle marketdroid replied "Oh that! Well we figure that this licenceing system is just as bogus and non-binding as any normal shrinkwrap licence, so it really doesn't matter.. No one but Microsoft could win that in a court of law".


    I just pasted in the GPL and downloaded my GPLed copy of 8i, you all should too.. But where is my source? -gm :P

    Seriously, if a software company can say we agreed to some opressive licence by clicking a button that gives them ZERO feeback, as well as never having negioations with users... How is it any differnt here.. I amended the license, gave it my click of approival, and they obviously agreed: I'm 50% into the download!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, this is definitely possible!

    Remember that just like a web server, Oracle will listen on a port.

    You don't mention whether you want to install a new server at the same time or use the same box.

    If using the same box: install in a different location than customary (so that your O7 stuff isn't disturbed), and use a different port. That way your O7 stuff stays up all the time.

    Then, use the various tools to transfer your data, schemas, etc. to O8. When everything is ready, shut down O7, start O8 on the same port and you are ready. Downtime could be as little as a couple minutes in this case.

    BUT watch out! You need to check your client libraries on each machine accessing Oracle to make sure whether they will work with O8.

    Of course, if you have different boxes it gets easier.
  • What do you do normally when an instance goes away? If your servers must not go down, you must have backup servers of some sort, and you could probably manage an upgrade to them.
  • Huh?

    Where do you get the $12000 price tag? What I saw on their web site was that it started at around $1400... That's a little different.

    Also, although Oracle runs on lots of hardware, it is not device independent. Otherwise, why would they just be getting it out for Linux? They have done their best to isolate the platform-specific code, but it still has to be ported.

    I haven't played with 8i myself, but I had read that it had java web-based config utilities... Is this not true of 8i for Linux?
  • Unfortunately 2 elphants for a nickel is only worth it if you need 2 elphants and have a nickel.

    Oracle provides a 99.9% solution for 100% of the price.
  • by belphegore ( 66832 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @08:49AM (#1793889)
    The cognoscenti who are a little familiar with Oracle's web/ftp presences might, like myself, have just skipped going through Oracle's frequently-overloaded technet webserver and just gone straight to Oracle's FTP site [] and grabbed the stuff from there directly. Higher likelyhood of connection, can get ncftp to hammer if you can't connect first time, and also, it's anonymous!
  • Weeel,
    There is also the locking issues...Sybase at least up until their lates version (You know, the one not avalible for linux) only supports page locking versus oracles row locking. (not counting full table lock etc.)Ask just about any sybase programmer if he/she ever had problem with deadlocks and the answer would be like @#*&^%#!!
  • That's the "Enterprise" edition. For the "just plain server" it's closer to $2000 for a 10 users/processor license.

    Needless to say, none of this is obvious from the website.

    As for Oracle on NT: It's more than pretty tools and performance hits. It's also bugs-aplenty. I just finished benchmarking Oracle on Linux and NT and I had to cancel the NT test because it couldn't even do some of the tests. Bulk loading was the killer--for some reason it could create but not populate the reject file (for large (?) data loads).

    These tests were with the free downloadable versions, BTW, so YMMV.
    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • I believe that Sybase is not as good of a choice as it once was. The latest version is still the only version 11.0.3-3

    Wondering if they have lost their interest in Linux....

    Also comparing some stuff....
    there is no tool in Sybase to get a ddl (need 3rd party toy) []
    there is no way to dump the db to a collection of SQL statements. similar to postgreSQL's pg_dump [a feature that Oracle has in the stock install]

    I would love to see Sybase use linux as a means to have Sybase move in on MS-SQL Sewer on the low to mid range. But they don't have the balls/ovaries.
  • I tried for 2 DAYS to download via HTTP but it kept pooping out at 20-30 MB (this was a 100MB download). Finally I wised up and went over to my Linux box to use ncftp.

    Of course, then I had to find it. Turns out the 95/98/NT client software is in the Netware directory...

    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, I like that it "enables current Linux users to deploy enterprise-class applications", but I'd also like to know what the heck it is. Someone? Or is Oracle like toilet paper and everyone knows what you use it for?
  • Well I think the very fact that Oracle has a port of it's database is ample proof that the above statement is false.

    This is one area that microsoft cannot touch with a 10 foot pole. Basically it comes down to what businesses (besides small businesses) need and that is a way to organize data that is meaningful to them to make them more productive. Wonder what that group of bread companies could do with Oracle.
  • Just about. Oracle is a database application for major businesses. Often in the past deployed with NT. This just levels the playing field for more people to use linux as a database platform.
  • It is a Relational Database Management System. Competitors include Sybase, Informix, DB2, etc.
  • Oracle itself is a software company. The second largest (last time i heard) with only Microsoft being larger.

    Oracle8i is a really powerful database. It's the thing that powers sites like ebay and amazon - though i guess ebay wouldn't be a good example! :)
  • yeah your're right about the price .. i was missing that one ... There is a full price list on the main site if you dredge through the bullshit enough. Yeah... I ran Oracle for Linux vs. Oracle for NT (i think) on identical hardware. I never bothered with benchmarks -- Just from the lousy long install process I gave up on the NT version. ick. I've noticed very different performance between the eval versions and the real versions too.
  • only problem being that the files on the oracle FTP site are time-limited evaluations.
  • by JohnnyCannuk ( 19863 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @09:09AM (#1793905)
    ...lets hear from someone who has actually USED and DEVELOPED Oracle 8.15 under NT.

    Firstly, Oracle has become the industry standard RDMS simply because, as a backend database/application server, it is escellent, regardless of whether it runs on NT or a *nix box.
    Most DBA's will do their administration tasks from the SQLPlus 3.3 or 8.0 command prompt anyway, not from the various GUI tools provided. Our DBA rarely used the Schema mangaer or Enterprise manager - he and every other Oracle DBA I've worked with, have ALWAYS used the command prompt. Even us developers used it - in the 9 months I worked on my last project, I never saw any kind of GUI manager - I don't even know what it looks like.
    As for performance, true, NT is slightly (duh!) behind * nix but Oracle runs equally well under both - a credit to their engineers. We had very few problems and when we did, it was generally NT having the problem, not Oracle (unless you count Designer or Developer 2000 - don't get me started on those sh*tty products). But in the big picture, the problems were rare, even under NT. Thus for most applications, it doesn't really matter - use the OS your used to with Oracle (unless its a mission critical system that has to up and working 24 - 7 then I'd stick to *nix. Most apps aren't this important).

    Oracle 8i runs just fine on my NT partition on a PII 350 with 64 megs of ram and 1.5 gigs of hard-drive space - so put the crack pipe down before you spout about terabyte/petabyte databases. Oracle is designed to be scalable - You can use it for a 500 meg database or a 5 terabyte database, as long as the hardware can handle it (my last project was used on a PII 450 box and took up about 1 gig in total storage space).

    I'm still waiting for my Oracle 8i for Linux CD to arrive (I too ordered it 3-4 months ago). My NT CD arrived in April. BTW, both of these are the "real deal" - fully functional, non-time limited versions of the Oracle 8.15 database (and not Personal Oracle either - just Oracle 8i ENTERPRISE Edition!). Cost $0 (CDN). I can only use it for personal, non commercial use. If I need to distibute a product based on it, then I buy the licence (or rather, my client does). Sounds fine to me.

    I fully agree with you that this news is very good as it will encourage a whole new segment of the IT world to try their thing on Linux - it will make developing and/or porting robust, enterprise level apps to Linux easier, which will increase the user base. Nothing but good can come of this.

    But lets not take this news as another mindless opportunity to spread anti-NT FUD, especially from someone who obviously does not now or has never used Oracle under anything, let alone NT. Oracle is a good product which will do fine without you spreading bald-faced lies on it behalf. You making yourself look like a fool.

    Moderators -4 Insightful? WTF? Try again...this guy hasn't got a clue enought to be even 2 Interesting

  • I got my NT version - have yet to receive the Linux version, although a message from Oracle in the Technet discussion group promises that it is ready to ship....

  • it's about time! BTW (and off the topic) any have any insight into ms sql server 7? It is supposed to be a complete rewrite and totally a MS product.
    Has anyone tried it out yet?
  • First, I agree that releasing to Linux is a very good idea if you want to target Internet applications.

    But, I would like to caution anyone for looking down on 8i for its slow acceptance. Oracle tends to be found in the heart of large, mission critical systems. As a result, admins are always very wary of touching it. Why fix it if it ain't broke. Upgrades are almost always done just for performance or bug fixes.

    New technology, such as that found in 8i, is used in new projects (or new versions of existing projects). But with less then 5.5 months until Y2K, etc, IT deptartments have put less emphasis on new projects and more on Y2K.

    In the mean time, 8i is out and proving itself. After Y2K comes around and the dust settles, companies will be returning to new projects and in general be more interested in trying new things. Oracle and 8i will be nicely established and ready to serve up.

    Even better, Linux may prove itself to be a great platform for Oracle 8i based internet applications and companies will be basing their new projects on Linux.

  • As I said "Sybase at least up until their lates version (You know, the one not available for linux)"
    How long has 11.9.2 been out and avalible?
    We where taking about popularity issues and sybase have just very recently made row locking available.
    I didn't say that to pick features in current versions etc. But as a reason to why oracle was popular in enterprize settings.
  • You can't easily store Java objects in the database. You can do it, but there's no built-in support for it. You can create Java objects from data in the database; there's a lot of support for that. But when you store the Java object you turn it back into RDBMS data. It's no longer an object.

    That said, Java in the database is still very useful. One important thing to note is that each connected user gets his/her own VM. This means that instead of having to write your own multi-threaded, multi-user app, you can write a single threaded, single user app and let the Oracle handle the multi-user bit. Oracle provides all sorts of dispatching, load-balancing, and security features, features that are critical for real-life server apps.

    Also, to the best of my knowledge, the only visible proprietary classes are the classes that implement JDBC. Everything else is either invisible or is not Oracle proprietary.
  • Hmmmm... I am currently working on a db application that we have on 3 NT boxes running Oracle 7.3.4. Some of the issues we have run into are:

    1) Disk controllers. When running logs we only have one disk controller. This restricts the through put of the data. the wintel system we bought only offers space for 4 controllers max so we are very limited.

    2) For some reason the database locks up and we have to power cycle the NT server to bring the system back. Our systems and database people do not have a clue as to why.

    3) Scheduling. We have a number of reporting extracts and other batch processes that need to be scheduled out of hours. However, NT does not have a decent scheduler and so we spent thousands on a 3rd party product which we have spent the past 5 months attempting to get to work. In UNIX you can use cron to kick off fairly sophisticated scripts that include error condition checking. Until it supports decent scheduling, NT is not a true enterprise OS.

    4) Lack of a decent scripting interface. We spent more money on a propriatery korn shell interface/tool kit for NT so we could set up scripts and batches. Not only that, I have used cshell, ksh, bash and sh. And while it is close, there are quirks in the shell due to the fact you are not in a true *nix environment.

    5) Raid 5 + Oracle + NT do not mix. If you are looking for a dirt slow database, look no further.

    Anyway, these are just some of my experiences. I feel that with our growth rate 1 or 2 medium sized UN*X boxes would have been a better investment.

  • Does anybody have any experience, tips, warnings, etc. for XML development with 8i?
  • I renegotiated the Oracle 8i download terms by editing the contract before I clicked OK. My copy of Oracle 8i is licensed to me under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
  • Row locking is only an option for user tables; system tables are still page locked, and will be so until 1Q00, or is that 1Q2000? I know of one site that thas horrendous performance problems that Sybase cannot cure.
  • The previous suggestions were good. It may also be possible to have both databases running side-by-side (not on NT though, the last info I had was NT can only handle one instance of Oracle running at a time). Once you get the new database
    set up w/ tables structured etc. you can create a
    database link to update all the tables in the Oracle 8 version. Note that you will probably take a performance hit. You can then test (very important to test!) the new database and then switch over when you feel comfortable with the data. If you have not premapped the data, if there are any table changes you will have to do so.

    The best thing is to do this incrementally. Migrate data at night (or whenever you have some slack time) incrementally. take the next day or two to test (testing is important!). Then do the next stage. Repeat until migrated. Do some final testing then sign off on the project. Else, reconvert until satisfied with results.

    Ideally, you should have 2 servers to do this. But a mainframe or a medium sized UNIX box should suffice.
  • >It's something like IBM's DB2 Universal Database
    >for Linux but not as fast, stable, easy to
    >install and use, or even cool. Did I mention DB2
    >for Linux is free for a developers license? ;)

    Hmm, are you possibly an unabashed IBMer under that AC guise? To tell the truth, I am an IBMer--and to set the record straight, the 6.1 version of DB2 for Linux available on the web is currently a beta version. Don't even bother with the 5.2 beta for Linux.

    I've been following and participating in the DB2 beta newsgroup discussion at; it looks like your claim of 'easy to install' is true if you're installing on RedHat (5.2 or 6.0, or a Linux Mandrake derivative), Caldera, and possibly TurboLinux, IIRC. (Note: easy to install, if your definition includes the prereq of certain RPMs, including the use of RPM in the first place.)

    I have heard (same newsgroup) that the Personal Edition of DB2, including the developer components, will be free (beer) when the product is released--probably in a few weeks time.

    Any comparison notes yet on the experiences people have had installing Oracle vs. DB2 (v6.1) on non-RedHat distros?

    -- DenialS

  • A bit offtopic, but how does a database such as Postgres compare to Oracle, DB2 and Sybase? I'm looking to develop an application requiring high-volume, high-performance database access (primarily information 'look-ups') and I was trying to figure out what would be the best route to go as far as a database-backend was concerned.
  • It is not that simple...although one would assume
    that you could have different versions running
    on the same box, if you do, tech support will not
    help you. They will require that you remove or
    upgrade the older version(or most likely, tell you to upgrade all instances to the latest patch level) for support.

    Some times Oracle will get confused and see the
    other Oracle instance and some how read the wrong
    ORA.INI file...
  • In case you don't feel like going thru registration hassles, just grab it from /linux/815ship.tgz []. It is legal, ain't it?
  • Jabber wrote:

    >Well, now that 8.1.5 is officially available to >the Linux crowd, maybe Oracle will get around to >sending me that complimentary copy of 8i that I >requested three months ago.
    >Did anyone get theirs? I know that my NT version >arrived in a couple of weeks, but I've not seen >hide nor hair of the Linux offering.
    >I certainly hope that this is not indicative of >Oracle's support for Linux. All talk? Since the >update is up for D/L, I guess not, but it would >be nice to run the two side by side to see how >they stack up...
    >Still waiting for my CD Oracle

    I'm awaiting my CD for Linux too - and also IBM's DB2 for Linux.

    But... now I have moved to another country and not left any address. So I wonder if they can find me :)

    Anyway - in the meantime I try to do a little Oracle on the 15 Unix servers (with 2 Gb ram each/2 CPU'es) just for warming up :)

  • If Oracle is more popular than Sybase because of Marketing that means you can fool (at least most-) of ALL the IT Professionals MOST of the time. Not so. The fault dear Brutus...

    People who make their living implementing systems don't make decisions based on advertisements.

    The Linux port is great because it works the same, including all of the same functionality, as Oracle on every other port.
  • Someone wrote:

    >Yes, I like that it "enables current Linux users >to deploy enterprise-class applications", but >I'd also like to know what the heck it is. >Someone? Or is Oracle like toilet paper and >everyone knows what you use it for?

    I guess that not everyone knows what Oracle stand for. But when you do what to make enterprice solutions (for many users/big networks) - the use of a powerfull database (like Oracle) for storing and manipulating huge amount of data is a BIG help.

    I guess that in the future, OS'es will have a build in database for the most nessesary stuff. MicroSoft have already plans to integrate their SQL Server into their OS [Some of their products rely heavy on it already].



  • 1) is designed for way more than 100G (my largest until now is 780G)
    2) installed an hour ago on my 128M laptop, what really hits is jre going up to 110M SZ during install
    3) Oracle on NT -- depends on what you use it for :)
    4) see 2) unless you have a character mode JRE
    5) the download edition is 815 EE production -- not really beta, my dear friend
    As for price, Oracle for Linux should cost ~ as Oracle for NT...
  • Or is Oracle like toilet paper and everyone knows what you use it for?

    Heh, "he doesn't know how to use the 3 shells." :)

    Actually, I'm still trying to fiugre out _something_ useful I can use a big ol' database package for just so I have an excuse to set one up (like Oracle's). Someday...

  • Err... I am an Oracle (and Java) developer and have been one for the past 4 years (Java 1 year). In my shop (a fortune 400 company), we are dying to get the new Oracle 8i in production because we want the new features.

    I agree that most database developers do not understand the power that you can get from the features in Oracle 8i. These features are mostly do to the integration of Java. Finally, one can store objects (real objects, not stored procedures or nested tables) in the database. The result is that you can publish your Java database interface to the SQL engine. Then you can do stuff like "select object from database". They [Oracle] have combined the power of objects with the speed and proven robustness of a relational database.

    The fact is that most database developers are not trained in object-oriented analysis and design (OOA/OOD). Unlike procedural programming, such as in C, COBOL, BASIC, or Oracle PL-SQL, object-oriented programming is more complex and cannot be mastered in a few years.

    IMHO, Oracle has advanced RDBMS technology to a new level. In a couple of years, as database developers are trained in OOA/OOD, you'll find some amazing things happening.

    Best of all, you can do it on your Linux box!

  • by mitchy ( 34242 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @10:43AM (#1793934) Homepage

    MySQL - small, hideously fast, limited features
    Oracle - huge, all-you-can-eat features

    Pretty much up to you, I'd use MySQL for a smallish app and move to Oracle when I needed more than simple SQL support.

    NOTHING can keep up with MySQL's speed, but sometimes you need more - transactions, relational integrity, stored procedures, triggers, row-level locking, remote synchronization, expensive books...

    I work with a site that takes 2M hits/day, and all pages are DB driven. We used MySQL at first, and now are moving to Oracle for integrity, reliability, and scalability issues.

    I think having MySQL and Oracle are all you would need, as they complement each other well.

  • Well, there is one HUGE difference between MySQL and Oracle. The "developers" of mySQL don't think that Foreign Keys (FKs) are needed in a relational database. They expect the database developer to do all the work of preserving parent-child data relationships. Rubbish if you ask me. Oracle, of course, has FKs.

    Now, if you're developing a 3 table app for your mom's web site, then by all means don't waste your money on Oracle -- it's too expensive and mySQL will work just fine.


  • by jabbo ( 860 )
    I implemented and rolled out a secured Oracle web application with a 5-user concurrent limit ($2000) by choking the number of Apache children down to five.

    Real fucking hard. Could we have afforded an unlimited web license? Probably. But for $28K less we got a working install which services everyone who needs it (maybe 500 people, never more than 5 at one instant in time).


    Henry Ford said something along the lines of "people who don't think ahead never have enough time; people who do, never have too little". Same thing goes for money, licenses, what have you.

    In any event, around the release of Postgres 6.6 (currently projected for 5 months or so), a lot of these license questions will be moot -- Postgres should achieve functional parity with Oracle at that point, and you'll have a free alternative.

  • As for performance, true, NT is slightly (duh!) behind * nix but Oracle runs equally well under both - a credit to their engineers.
    This probably has something to do with the fact that serious databases have very little to do with their hosting OS. They try to avoid the operating system where possible, because it allows the programmer to optimize everything without depending on the optimization the OS programmers did -- and speed is all-important in relational databases.

    One example is raw filesystem access, where the database sidetracks the OS to access and organize the hard disk space itself. (Linux doesn't really support raw access yet)

    I imagine that Oracle doesn't use any of libc, and only the most primitive operating system calls. [except of course on its shell -- the GUIs and even command-line interface]

    Now, I don't how well NT works, but I'd imagine if you ran Oracle and nothing else on an NT box, the OS wouldn't be very noticable.

  • Based on the NT version I installed, I think it means "it'll be in the next version". At least that's the story for iFS and the HTTP Listener - 2 of the things I wanted to try out. The release notes say that they'll be in version 8.1.6.
  • First off, I hope you have a backup server where you can test migrating your database from 7 to 8. For example, all of our pro*C applications have blown up on recompile under O8, because the developers didn't stick to the Oracle recommendations for the make files.

    8 days, I hope, includes precautionary backups and/or exports. Otherwise, there is no reason your database needs to be down for 8 days. But your DBA will need stand-alone time to:
    1. Run the MIG utility under O7. (MIG wants to startup/shutdown the database.)
    2. Modify $ORACLE_HOME
    3. Modify init.ora
    4. Restart as O8.
    startup nomount
    alter database convert;
    alter database open resetlogs;

    We've also had the MIG utility core dump with one of our database instances--the others have converted OK. Hince, the reason you need to do your own testing.

    The only way I can think of for you to convert a running database without interruption is if you have implemented Advanced Replication. If so, you will definately need $$$ Oracle consultation on migrating a replicated database.

    Also, if your DBA plans to upgrade via export/import instead of using MIG, there are bugs in 8.0.5 related to export/import. Be sure you're running at least or later.

    (MIG however REQUIRES that you start with 8.0.5 base, then migrate, then apply the patch update after all instances are migrated.)
  • Yes,

    From what I understand, Oracle has an equity investment in RH. So, I assume that's their test bed.
  • suggestion: a database of all open source software on the web with websites and usabiltiy ratings?

  • MySql is a toy, nothing more. It is like running MS Access as a database. OK for a few people working in a small workgroup setting, nothing more. Oracle is the heavy iron.

    I kind of have a problem with MySql saying on their web site how they support standard SQL. My handy-dandy SQL 92 reference lists COMMIT and ROLLBACK as commands, but MySql won't have any part of them.... Plus not having stored procedures bites, it forces you to code your business rules in the application, which leads to having to release new versions of software just becuase of a business rule change, rather than just updating a stored procedure in the database.
  • 11.9.2 is scheduled to be out for Linux within weeks; it's supposed to be priced along the lines of NT and 'workgroup' databases, so you won't have to plunk down $50K just to sit at the table :)

    In addition, Sybase SQL Anywhere is currently out for Linux, which is excellent for most applications, particularly where you're installing it on a server for someone else and don't want any upkeep hassles.

    (not working for Sybase, just a relatively happy customer)
  • There is no direct (unbuffered) device access in Linux (yet), unlike older Unixen - even though you can create a "character" device with the a name like /dev/rhda1, it will still transfer data through kernel buffers, instead of directly to the userspace buffer referenced by the read() or write() call.
    It has been an issue of some contention among the kernal maintainers, I understand, and is evidently not as easy to fix as it sounds (note: I know little of Linux internals - I'm just repeating what I've heard).
    Remember, Linux has a from-scratch code base, and raw disk access is a trick normally used only by high-end databases, like Oracle, and file-system maintenance tools like the original fsck. Up until now, it just hasn't been needed, I guess.
  • 1) Why emulate a broken product? Just program for Sybase (or Oracle, or...)

    2) Your example for building a "locks" table won't work on a database that doesn't do locking (like SQL server sometimes fails to do). Occasionally two people will attempt to lock at the same time and since the database doesn't lock properly, they'll both succeed.

    3) The API solution is the only solution you present that will work, but again, it has to work for the API as well as the database. Implementation of a proper locking mutex is a solved problem, but its implementation is non-trivial in some environments. I remember Amiga (through the 1500) had a prohibition against using Test-and-set instructions because it threw off the time-multiplexing for memory access, for instance.
  • I agree with your conclusion, but some friendly advice (that I will not guarantee, YMMV):

    1) If you're using NT4 SP3 or SP4 you may have some NTFS stability problems on large volumes under high load. SP5 apparently fixes that. A major clue is if your lockup results in a file system check. We had problems with 7.x too, but they went away with the 8.05 upgrade + the sp4 patch to the filesystem.

    2) Be sure to make at least one mirrored drive for your redo logs (and get your swap space off the RAID too). RAID5 is not as good as mirrored stripe sets (RAID 0+1) for data, but it's doable if you get the logs on a mirrored volume (and you're doing hardware RAID).

    3) You're not using virtual RAM, are you? ORACLE will be a serious dog in NT if you're doing any swapping, and it's way too easy to make it eat too much RAM.
  • We run multiple instances and versions on several NT development servers. I agree it requires tuning to get 'em running right on production servers (where you want to have all possible resources used) but it's possible.
  • ibm sells more than oracle, but i think microsoft may have had a few quarters recently that surpassed ibm. win98 sales, no doubt.
  • Often in the past deployed with NT

    Yes, Oracle is sometimes deployed with NT, but even people who disdain unix will use sun/hp-ux/whatevernix boxes to run production oracle dbs.

    If the client for an app crashes, you can just reboot.

    If the server running the database crashes, you have all kinds of questions about what state the data is in. yes, relational databases make sure that you don't get stuck with half of a transaction written, but it can still be tough to figure out what has happened for sessions that were open at the time the database went down.

    Users don't like being denied access to their data, either; the greater uptime of industrial strength unix is very desirable for critical stuff like a database.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It's something like IBM's DB2 Universal Database for Linux [] but not as fast, stable, easy to install and use, or even cool. Did I mention DB2 for Linux is free for a developers license? ;)
  • What site can you go to on the internet that is updated more than slashdot? None that I have seen. Plus it's a good combination between usenet and a news site!
  • Can anyone tell me the difference between Oracle8.0.5 "Server" and 8.1.5 "i"? That is other than the buzzwords on Oracles Site.

    Does it do anything different or is it just a later version with additional features and all the functionality of the earlier? (Has the same price though.)

  • Well, now that 8.1.5 is officially available to the Linux crowd, maybe Oracle will get around to sending me that complimentary copy of 8i that I requested three months ago.

    Did anyone get theirs? I know that my NT version arrived in a couple of weeks, but I've not seen hide nor hair of the Linux offering.

    I certainly hope that this is not indicative of Oracle's support for Linux. All talk? Since the update is up for D/L, I guess not, but it would be nice to run the two side by side to see how they stack up...

    Still waiting for my CD Oracle.
  • additional features This is correct. Mostly related to java, iirc.

    I know that it has much more featureful jdbc connectivity; I've been
    waiting for this release for a while.

  • by brams ( 70638 )
    Of course, after you download the 120+ MB's you'll discover that it's good for 30 days, then you need to spring for a license (at the same pricey schedule as Oracle on other platforms).
  • Is it even possible to just increment these things in commercial software? Is there an example where the version increased with no changes to the code (same checksum except for version)?
  • Context (the full text search aspect of Oracle before 8i) has been renamed and reworked as Intermedia. It is supposedly more reliable, but I haven't heard anything about more functionality. I am using the Arsdigita Community System (opensource web publishing kit which uses AOLserver and Oracle and is available here []) which has a module for site wide search that uses it.

  • Okay, I'm fortunate enough to be a geek in a position of moderate power when it comes to IT decisions in my company (yeah, like those boxes got star wars names on their own). Anyway, we are in the process if developing a very large scale application that will require gigabytes of data in the database. At first we discussed using MySQL, as it was the only development tool available for us. I had used MySQL in the past with good success for my personal site and some other semi-commercial sites that I developed.

    Here are what I see as the advantages of each.

    MySQL is REALLY fast and light on resources. I'm able to run MySQL on my personal web server with 24 megs of ram, 300 megs of hard disk and a pentium 63 processor. It runs at a very acceptable speed for the site it manages. However it is hindered by the fact that no database can contain more than two gigs of data. This is a limitation as a result of the linux file system. Also it is lacking some nice stuff like foreign keys, stored procedures, nested selects. In all reality it implements only basic SQL. But is fine for most people.

    Oracle to be quite frank, rocks my world. I've installed it numerous times and it is a hefty beast to install (and was a challenge to get working on RH 6.0). Anyway, it supports databases of unlimited size and works much better on large amounts of data. We are currently testing a system with 30 million rows of data in it and oracle flys through this like one of the SGI's through Seti@Home blocks. Its provides much more flexibility in terms of setup of the database. You can spread the files across multiple disk controllers. Also oracles stored procedures are simply awesome.

    Oracle also provides a wider range of tools to play with. Loading in 30 million rows of imported data would be hideously slow over Perl/MySQL, but with SQL*Loader and spreading the load across 4 processors oracle can do this in under an hour.

    To sum it up, here is my view. If you are developing something enterprise level (millions of rows of data) kiss MySQL goodbye, because it can't handle it. If you need triggers or stored procedures, later MySQL. If you have a low budget, keep on hoping because I could buy my car like 12 times over for the price of this beast.

    So, choose what you wish. Also, if you say you are using MySQL some clients balk at that. Say you are using oracle, and they are like "wow, thats pimp!".

    Please note, these comments refer to oracle 8.0.5, I haven't had a chance to play with Oracle 8i yet.

  • Clever. But I have 3 objections:

    1) Why should I have to worry about this? Deadlocking is a very old problem in computers/databases and has been solved already. Why should I have to go through this entire process when the database should be doing it instead? It is one more detail to keep track of and I have allot on my plate as it is.

    2) It is too clever. While I like to think that all of us are competent and heads up programmers,
    we all know that there are goobers out there who will hose it up. Any solution which requires too much special magik to pull off is a poor engineering design.

    3) Deadlocking is a known and solved problem. Any
    database engine which does not deal with it well is not worthy of the name "database engine." Any company which sells a db with such a design flaw should NOT be in business. That company will not be taken seriously for mission critical situations unless you deal with these reliability issues. The database will not be considered for air traffic control, nuclear power plants or any other real engineering application until the quality improves.

    If we want computers to move into more areas and higher risk areas, shoddy design by databse (or any other software) designer cannot be tolerated as it could kill someone.

    Just some thoughts....

  • Oracle is that "great" database that sites like eBay and eTrade use. Oh wait, they keep crashing. Ebay has more trouble staying up than an elderly lady. :) I think I will stay with DB2 ;)
  • Really, unless you are ready to shell out over 30k for a web server running Oracle for Linux... FORGET doing ANY development on it..

    I called Oracle and about crapped my pants when they quoted me 30k ... and that is with a 2 year license... on a ONE - DUAL 400mhy CPU pentium MACHINE - ....

    Oracle Sucks... there databases are solid, but unless you have a huge company that is willing to fork out the bux for it... .. my opinion there are a lot better alternatives.

    Use Sybase if you need anything but a Ebay sized solution.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Oracle8i Release Note
    Release 8.1.5 for Intel-Linux

  • 8i IS selling well. Adoption of new features and functionality takes time. The article you've noted is FAR more COMPLIMENTARY to 8i than its headline suggests.

    Regretably, NT is a far larger market than Linux; that's why 8i came out on NT first. From here on out, though, I don't suspect you'll see a 4 month lag between the Linux and NT ports.

    Oracle is well aware of the importance of Linux.

    Want some numbers?

    - Over 50K developers have downloaded Oracle8 for Linux from the Oracle Tech Network. Already. Let's see how 8i-Linux does over the next month or so. Should be great-

    - 20K others have already pre-registered for 8i on Linux. Hope those disks are going out NOW.
  • Hi,

    I have used db2 before on NT and tried to get it adopted as a company standard (at my previous place) but failed.

    Now with my own company I will be reviewing db2 again. At first glance it is a pity that Java Applications require a Db2 CAE installation on the client (currently I use Interbase or Postgresql both of which have pure java jdbc drivers which is much to be preferred).

    Regarding your comments about package standards. I understand your point but I think you are overestimating the amount of work. For example I use Debian and I am certain that creating a DEB is not that dificult.

    Of course for a small company like us the price of DB2 may prove to be prohibative anyway. I just looked at the ibm shop and could not immediately see what license price would apply to a an application server accessible over the internet.


  • Crock! There I've said it. If oracle is confused about which init file it's reading then it's the environment thats hosed, not oracle. I've run multiple versions of software on the same box for years without any trouble. And YES I've gotten support from them. If you've seen problems, then it was a bug, and oracle will definately support you. Unless of course you set up your environment incorrectly which isn't oracle's fault. Try to watch your path/oracle_home/oracle_sid and possibly two_task vars a bit closer. I'll bet this is where your problems were. Pay close attention to OFA (or something as well structured) 'cause this is also an area for concern.

    Each oracle instance gets it's own shared memory segment once started, completely independant of any other instance(s) started. Even a listener can be shared between version (same port). You just tell it where it's oracle home is for each instance. I've done it for years with no problems.
  • Oracle Enterprise Manager 2.0 is (now) Java. You shouldn't have trouble running it on Linux.

    WebDB is all HTML; shouldn't have trouble running it on Linux.

    Near as I can tell, Oracle is in the process of moving all of its' Development Tools to Java. Good for Linux don't you think?
  • I know you're right will Oracle 8i.
    Oracle corp try to keep things simpel and efficient - avoiding the limits of the OS.

    But I was talking about what a Database is and Oracle, not Oracle 8i.

    And MicroSoft do! use SQL server in their products to look up information - and they do plan to work SQL-Server into their OS (part of the OS).

    It is fine that Oracle want to have a super efficient Database (who they claim is at least 100x more efficient that SQL Server on > 1TB data), that use only little OS.

    But the OS'es could benefit from a buildin database, to keep track of the OS itself. I would prefer to have a shink down version of Oracle/SQL_server in my OS, that to have a OS+Oracle 8i (or SQL Server) and do the merging myself.


  • DJerman has some sound advice for you to try. I absolutely beleive you about your problems but I'm talking Oracle 8.05 or 8.15 i enterprise, not 7.3.4. We need to compare apples to apples here. I am fully aware of the issues surrounding NT and Oracle or NT and anything, my point was that the original poster was absolutely lying in his diatribe against Oracle on NT. If you have a good, true agruement, there is no need to make stuff up. Linux advocacy will go nowhere if intellectual honesty is the first casualty of war.

    This reminds me of the whole NT vs Linux Mindcraft benchmarks (which we can agree was a true excersise in FUD). What it really boiled down to was that for the most part, both OS were good with in the normal operating parameters for most users - Linux was able to come out ahead in the c't (?) tests because it is more stable in the long term and the price can't be beat. Well the same applies to the Oracle 8i stuff above.
  • You'd better not mention your opinion on the linux-kernel mailing list. If you think /. comments are bad! (But I agree with the vocal responses on l-k and would likely join in the process of "educating" you how stupid an idea putting a database in the kernel of an OS is for a general purpose OS).

    Now if you're talking about a specialized "database" appliance box then that's different. But for general purpose OS's integrating a database is just plain stupid.
  • Can you say FreshMeat?
  • I agree with everything your saying -- Did I ever mention that as a DBA I used the OEM and schema manager? Nada. I think I made a comment about those tools as well as the wizards causing one to lose control of the database and run to the Oracle default specs. I.e. the default database on an NT system sets default_tablespace to SYSTEM for all users... I also would argue, just as you say, that the UNIX version is better for mission-critical Oracle applications. I use NT just as much as I use Unixes ... I'm not a raving Linux advocate ... although I have found Oracle to fit neatly like a glove with the Oracle architecture. When you mention the scalability of Oracle ... keep in mind that the product you are using -- 8i Enterprise -- is the top of that scale. Before you get inflamatory and start personally insulting me, perhaps you should re-read my comments and compare them to your own -- you'll find that your fancy wording actually says much the same things as I wrote. My comment about Oracle for NT is that it is basically under the same train of design as NT itself -- sacrifice some performance and stability on the flipside of increased usability and visual representation? It certainly does make corporate sense to have DBA's with a quick-and-dirty MCSE, yesno?
  • by KevinRemhof ( 29738 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @07:53AM (#1793990)
    Oracle 8i has been out for about 4 months now. But, it is not selling well. The main focus of 8i is new Internet features. It sports a Java VM, new web-based development tools, supports audio and video, and has a new file system.

    Most users upgrading to it don't seem to care about these features. They just want to run a newer, faster version of Oracle.

    So, why Linux now? Simple. Linux rules the Internet. With such are large percentage of Linux servers running the web, why not realease this Database to a market which might care? This database and its' new features are supposed to be for the web. Linux is the natural OS to release it for.

    Of course, as soon as Linux users start bragging about how great 8i is, Windows users will demand it. Guess what? They already have it. This seems to be a backwards way of releasing it. But, Oracle is just now realizing the potential of Linux.

    You can see more information about the sluggish adoption of 8i here [].
  • I haven't gotten my 8.1 for linux yet... I did get my 8.0.5... but then again i've recieved DB2 for NT from IBM, but not yet for Linux... is it a conspiracy?
  • The big question is it faster? Most likely not with the news features mentioned.
  • Is there anyway to migrate from Oracle 7 to 8 without shutting the system down? We're running Oracle 8 on AIX and NT and need to migrate without going offline (this is a hospital; servers must not go down). Engineers report that the migration will take 8 days. That's just not possible. Does anyone know if a migration is possible while keeping the system live? I need info on any platform (AIX, NT, Linux, whatever).
  • by Rage Maxis ( 24353 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @08:02AM (#1793995) Homepage
    1) for you who don't know what Oracle is: Its a database. Not like mSQL or PostGres or Microsoft SQL server ... it is a device-indendent, SQL based database. Oracle 8 for Linux (retail $12,800 USD, this is a demo version) is designed for 2-100 Gig databases. It is designed to properly operate on any sort of hardware -- AIX, VMS, HP-UX, Linux, NT, SCO, Solaris, etc. on and on and on. 2) If you are excited by oracle 8I and have less than 256 megs of ram on your linux box, don't bother downloading oracle 8i. Its designed with Terabyte and Petabyte databases in mind. 3) Oracle for NT is not even a competing product to Oracle for Unice ... The unix versions of Oracle are stable, efficient system from a decade of testing and development. For server functionality, you can't beat Oracle on a mainframe and Linux in my experience shows the same maturity. I doubt Oracle8i for NT would even run properly i.e. the 100% CPU spike bug. 4) There is one function of Oracle8 for Linux that is lacking -- all of the functions are character mode. There is no motif support (maybe its in 8i, havent downloaded it yet, site is BUSY) ... under NT you get pretty tools like Enterprise Manager, Schema Manager and simplistic install tools. Without these, Oracle is very difficult to learn and understand from a DBA perspective. However, the NT tools make DBA's follow the Oracle-defined idea of performance and installation, which according to O'Reilly's DBA books is the LAST thing you want to do. Since most Oracle installs on NT i've seen are 100% out of the box (the SQL command line is rarely seen) this is another performance hit. For these rambling reasons, Oracle on Linux is a strong presence ... Unfortunately, we must keep in mind that these are beta developer releases and the real meal deal starts at $10,000 USD++++++ Gerg
  • Thanks for the heads-up.

    It would have taken about 4 hours to download at the transfer rate I was getting :(

    Glad you saved me the @#$@$@#$@#!!!! swearing-fest that would have followed. I don't want to sell a kidney to run the database more than 30 days.

    Cheers Mate !!!

  • >This is one area that microsoft cannot touch with a 10 foot pole

    nah - sql server is actually biting oracle on the ass, in terms of delivering 80% functionality for 20% of the price...
  • by jd ( 1658 )
    I've got DB/2 for Linux. In fact, IBM sent me two copies. I know Linux multi-tasks, but I think it was a little unnecessary. :)
  • >True, it has some "internet" related features
    >such as a JVM within the database engine, but I
    >view the "i" as more of a marketing decision

    The addition of the "i" was purely a marketing decision that was made to underscore the fact that Oracle now has a number of internet related features such as the built-in Java Virtual Machine, the Internet File System (it's comming), and so forth.

    Jonathan Gennick
  • I do agree to that a general pupose database IN the OS would not be good. That is why I wrote: "I would prefer to have a shink down version".

  • IBM sent me DB2 for Linux months ago. They didn't send me one for NT, not that I care. I could easily get a copy of NT if I wanted one, but I would consider it a waste of space.

  • I didn't get my Linux version either. My coworker did get his copy for NT. Oh well, TANSTAAFL, I guess.

    --John Riney
  • What site can you go to on the internet that is updated more than slashdot? None that I have seen

    Try []. They have more news than you can handle, updated much more frequently than slashdot.

  • But it is very popular, at least for oracle's workgroup server. It seems all the vendors are forcing people to move to NT. What pain.

    The drive letters start to really get in the way.
    You actually can't have an OFI compliant install under NT because of the drive letters (unless you install everything on the same partition).

    OEM is kinda nice but you don't need it. The oracle courses heavily stress the cli tools, even under NT.
  • Actually, 8.1.5 is faster than 8.0.5, though not by a hell of a lot. It also has a couple of new abilities that have been missing for a long time. A great many people are upgrading to 8.1.5 without calling it 8i. If you ignore all the internet sh*t, it's a definite improvement over 8.0.5 for all users. The java stored procedure thing is neat, but not compelling.

  • i recieved an e-mail from oracle saying they anticipated having the cd ready in the last week of may.. obviously that date slipped..
  • by The Anonymous Cow ( 11359 ) on Tuesday July 20, 1999 @08:28AM (#1794009)
    Nope. It's a Development-only license. No time restrictions, but once you implement your application, you (or your customers) have to purchase a license. They're attempting to jump-start the Linux market by persuading developers to create and/or port their applications on Oracle (for free), then sell server licenses when the apps go 'live'. Pretty smart move on their part, if you ask me.
  • Oracle on NT is really amazingly stupid. Oracle was designed for Unix. Unix and NT have radically different process models (CreateProcess() vs. fork() ) and the NT model has 3x the process creation overhead. Oracle would have to be totally rewritten to run efficiently on NT, and it hasn't been. MSSQL runs rings around it since MSSQL has been designed to run on NT. If you want to run Oracle on NT, you obviously don't care about performance, and if you don't care about performance, why are you buying a $12k piece of software? The moral of all this? Run oracle on unix. Specifically, run oracle for Tru64 Unix on a Compaq GS-140!

Information is the inverse of entropy.