From: Michael Hasenstein (mha@suse.com)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 23:18:41 CEST
Message-ID: <3F5CF231.9080607@suse.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:18:41 -0700 From: Michael Hasenstein <mha@suse.com> Subject: [suse-oracle] Re: Fwd: UnitedLinux 1.0-Developer and Oracle9iR2 RAC
Hi,
> distribute products based on UL 1.0. (Doesn't the GPL
> require all vendors to make source code available for
> any distributed package, including patches?)
Exactly. For DISTRIBUTED packages. We don't distribute the binary
packages to you, so we don't need to give you the sources. Those who get
the binary packages of course also get the sources. Pls. check the
"advocacy" Linux groups and maillinglist archives (google...) about this
heavily discussed topic, GPL is NOT a (business-)suicide license, it
DOES allow commercialism! Sorry for the confusion but it results from
almost everyone misunderstanding the GPL. It does NOT require us (or
anyone) to give away everything for free to anyone... ;-) By the way,
the patches we make of course find their way into the official kernel,
it's just that the *exact* version that we certified is harder to come
by. Naturally.
You very likely don't need an SP1 to check out Oracle. The (kernel)
fixes in there are for high-load 4GB+ machines.
> 2. The SuSE support matrix says that "To get an
> Oracle certified system you need at least the
> following kernel version (or higher!):
> k_smp-2.4.19-196.i586.rpm - SMP kernel", but says
> nothing about requireing a service pack.
That *is* the kernel version in SP1. Anything LATER than that is also
okay (and indeed recommended, always use the latest, at least if you
start from scratch and are not (yet) in the middle of production).
> 3. In a reply on this forum, Michael Hasenstein
> states that "All that Oracle cares about is the kernel
> and glibc. " and "All other packages: Doesn't matter".
Actually, the GCC version also matters (only during installation), but
Oracle does not care what version of X-Window or of the bash you've
installed.
> 4. Michael also says in another reply on this forum
> that it is much better to use SP2a than SP1.0 but does
> not state why this is.
Because even more (high-load) issues were fixed in that kernel update,
and because many more security fixes are in there. Most of the fixes in
new SPs are security fixes. It's just like with virus scanners: Always
use the latest!
> I really need any of the service packs? The latest
Technically, no. Do you need the very latest security patches? Don't
know...
> service pack is SP2a and the hotfix kernel that is
> included in SP2a is available on the SuSE FTP site.
> If I install that kernel (k_smp-2.4.19-xxx-304), do I
> get all of the benefits of SP2a as far as RAC is
> concerned?
Yes. Minus what else was fixed in all the other packages (mostly security).
> I also tried installing RAC on a SuSE 8.2 system but
> could not find a version of ocfs for the 2.4.20
> kernel. I downloaded the source for version 1.0.9 and
> tried to compile it with gcc 2.95 (the compile fails
> miserably if you try gcc 3.3), but it complained about
> non-existent struct items (kiobuf->kio_blocks,
> file->f_iobuf, and file->f_iobuf_lock) in ocfsmain.c.
> I compared the 2.4.20 source to the 2.4.19 source and
> found that kiobuf->kio_blocks exists in 2.4.19, but
> not in 2.4.20 (it's just called kiobuf->blocks in
> 2.4.20). I also found that file->f_iobuf and
> f_iobuf_lock exist in the 2.4.19 fs.h source, but not
> in the 2.4.20 source.
Don't know. Wim (the chief Linux guru at Oracle) makes the OCFS packages
for both SuSE and RedHat... we're going to included them as of SP3 I
think but we take what Wim gives to us, and only use it for/with UL/SLES.
> I was wondering if I'd be better off just installing
> the 2.4.19-xxx-304 kernel on SuSE 8.2 and installing
> RAC and ocfs in this environment rather thant UL 1.0.
> At least I'd be able to get updates/fixes. It just
Not tested with/for Oracle, and not tested on large machines. Yes, you
get (security) fixes with 8.2, it's just that they get a lot less
testing and no "enterprise" testing (big machines, high(er) load,
integration with 3rd party enterprise software).
> doesn't make sense that Oracle would encourage people
> to download UL 1.0 but not provide the necessary
> service packs to make it work.
Doesn't make sense to become #1 in the category "how many people use
SuSE Linux" but not make a single dime either...
You can very well run/test Oracle on a pure UL (no SPs), but if you want
production level service please pay us ;-)
Regards,
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-oracle-unsubscribe@suse.com
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-oracle-help@suse.com
Please see http://www.suse.com/oracle/ before posting
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 00:15:10 CEST