Dizwell wrote:Because to me "Solaris 11" == "Solaris 11.1".
Not being funny, but why would you think that?
Dizwell wrote:I guess there's room for interpretation and how people percieve things, but to me, if I saw "certified for fubar 11", I'd assume certified for any minor release within "fubar 11" (fubar 11.1, fubar 11.2, etc). However, if I saw the more specific "certified for fubar 11.1", I'm not so sure I'd assume certified for fubar 11.2. But by the same reasoning if I saw 'certified for fubar 11.1', I'd assume it was still good for fubar 11.1.1.
I raised an SR 3 weeks ago, asking whether Enterprise Edition with RAC and Partitioning version 188.8.131.52 was supported on Solaris 11.1.
The conversation went like this:
ME: Is 184.108.40.206.0 Enterprise Edition RAC with partitioning supported on Solaris Sparc 11.1?
THEM: Please let us know whether you need Certification Information for Standalone(Single Instance) or RAC.
ME: I did specify in my original request. It's 220.127.116.11. Enterprise Edition **RAC**. With partitioning.
THEM: "Oracle Real Application Clusters 18.104.22.168.0 is *NOT* certified on Oracle Solaris on SPARC (64-bit) 11.1"
ME: OK. But could you please provide me with the link to this, so I can read it for myself?
THEM: I just checked the Certification link which is available on the "My Oracle Support".
ME: Right, as I suspected. Solaris 11.1 isn't even mentioned on the Certification tab in MOS, so from that absence of evidence, you've merely assumed that the database isn't supported on that platform. It's an assumption I'm perfectly capable of making for myself. But given we pay a lot of money for proper support, how about giving me a serious, detailed and specific answer.
THEM: I 'll check with the certification team for details.
And shortly after that:
THEM: 22.214.171.124 Single Instance and RAC are supported on Solaris 11.1.
The certification team (whoever they are) went on to say "Applications certified on Solaris 11 is supported on Solaris 11 updates (Solaris 11.1+)".
My problem is that within the same SR, one Oracle employee has said "not supported", another quotes the 'certification team' as saying 'supported'. After 19 days of asking, I'm still basically left guessing which one is telling it like it actually is.
Anyone heard anything different, either way?
Dizwell wrote:yes, I'd say the second is more reliable. The first answer was given by the lowest level of support tech. They are NOT necessarily the final authority or most knowledgeable. You pressed the issue and got him to go to someone with more knowledge of the specific issue. Really not that unusual of a situation.
I'm not sure that my exchange with support backs anything up! I've been told it's supported and unsupported in the same SR! True enough, the 'it's supported' line came last, but does that make it any more reliable than the earlier 'no it's not' one??!
But fine: let's fly with what they told me last: "The MOS certifications for DB on OS lists the minimum version of OS required, and updates are automatically certified."I'd guess that would come from a knowledge of what kinds of things get changed at a point release. By your own admission you don't know what that is, and neither do I. But if the certification depended on a point release, then their initial certification for RHEL 6 should have (would have?) specified RHEL 6.1
Taking that at its face value, then: that means Oracle 126.96.36.199 is automatically certified on Red Hat 6.4, released just last week (because the MOS certifications for DB only mentions 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6'), since version 6.4 is just a point release of 6.x. I'm not sure I'd trust a certification program that (allegedly) says "Our database is automatically certified on an O/S that's only just been released and over which we have absolutely no control whatsoever'. That seems a meaningless thing to me: God knows what Red Hat have done to their kernel in 6.4 compared to (say) 6.3. I certainly don't... and neither does Oracle Corp. at this stage. So how they can say "automatically certified, because it's only a point release" beats me.
Moreover: Windows 2008 and Windows 2008R2... both are listed separately in MOS (but unless I'm much mistaken, all Windows since Vista have been version 6.something or other... The point-release auto-certify-no-need-to-mention-details trick doesn't seem to apply in that situation, does it?!)Windows is a world unto itself. To paraphrase ... "My momma always said Windows was like a box of chocolates ...". I avoid it every chance I get. Unfortunately, I still have one app that still requires Oracle 10.2 on Windows.
A pig's breakfast, I'd call it. Would it kill them to spell it out, at least to major point release level?!Edited by: EdStevens on Feb 27, 2013 7:56 AM