Rounding out our ever-growing set of 11gR1 Database certifications, I'm pleased to let you know that our Applications Platform Group has certified E-Business Suite Release 11i (11.5.10.2) with the 11gR1 Database version 11.1.0.6 on Microsoft Windows Server 2003 x64 (AMD64 / EM64T).
Note: This is a database tier only certification (also known as a 'split configuration'). The application tier must be on a fully certified E-Business Suite 11i platform.
References
- Interoperability Notes: Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i with Oracle 11g Release 1 (11.1.0) (MetaLink Note 452783.1)
- Using Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11 with a Database Tier Only Platform on Oracle 11g Release 1 (MetaLink Note 562983.1)
- Export/Import Process for Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i Database Instances Using Oracle Database 11g Release 1 (MetaLink Note 557738.1)
Related Articles
Comments (10)
Thanks Steven for all the information you post here. I am in the process upgrading our environment to 11g, we had run into an issue regarding some of the JDBC connections. For example, if you hit "Jserv Usage" under OAM, you will get "internal error", at the database side, you will see the JDBC connection cause core dump with ORA-07445: exception encountered: core dump [ttci2u()+3660] [SIGSEGV] [ADDR:0x0] [PC:0x1056A150C] [Address not mapped to object] []. I saw the same problem with Java Workflow mailer too, so after 5 core dumps, the mailer will simply shut down itself. editing mailer caused core dump also.
I did have a TAR open since June 18. Hopefully,, it will be resolved soon.
We are using 11.5.10.2 with ATG.H.RUP6 on Solaris 10.
Posted by Tianhua Wu | July 8, 2008 7:07 AM
Posted on July 8, 2008 07:07
Tianhua,
I'd be interested in getting more details about this. Can you either post your Service Request number here, or email it to me?
Regards,
Steven
Posted by Anonymous | July 8, 2008 10:37 AM
Posted on July 8, 2008 10:37
Thanks, Steven. The TAR is 6939611.993 and 19233832.6
Posted by Tianhua Wu | July 8, 2008 10:49 AM
Posted on July 8, 2008 10:49
Steven,
Can we use 11g data compression with E-Business?
Regards,
Saran
Posted by Salagirisamy | July 9, 2008 5:40 AM
Posted on July 9, 2008 05:40
Saran,
Not yet. I've discussed our plans for certifying some of the new 11g Database options in this article:
http://blogs.oracle.com/stevenChan/2007/11/28/
We're still in Phase 1 of our 11g DB certifications right now. Once we've got that under our belts, we'll start on these additional options.
Regards,
Steven
Posted by Steven Chan | July 9, 2008 1:32 PM
Posted on July 9, 2008 13:32
Hi Steven,
There are two bugs (7244327 for apps and 7253531 for rdbms) filed for this JDBC connection problem. Right now, TAR 19233832.6 is showing to wait for fixes for bug 7253531.
Since we could not use Java workflow mailer, this is a show stopper for our 11g upgrade. I have already asked TAR 19233832.6 to be escalated, Is there any way I can ask bug 7253531 to be escalated?
Thanks,
T Wu
Posted by Tianhua Wu | July 29, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted on July 29, 2008 12:42
Hi, Tianhua,
Bug 7253531 shows that your escalation request has been received this morning and is under review by the advanced Bug Diagnosis & Evaluation (BDE) team in the Database group.
I've notified our team on the Apps side of this issue too.
Regards,
Steven
Posted by Steven Chan | July 30, 2008 9:06 AM
Posted on July 30, 2008 09:06
Thanks, Steven! As always, you are so helpful. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
T Wu
Posted by Tianhua Wu | July 30, 2008 11:38 AM
Posted on July 30, 2008 11:38
We are having 11.5.10.2 db with 10g r2. Can we use the data compression feature for our environment? is there any best practices ...
Posted by govind | October 14, 2008 9:02 AM
Posted on October 14, 2008 09:02
Hi, Govind,
We haven't tried 10gR2 data compression with any E-Business Suite environments. In the absence of our testing, the feature is presumed to work.
I'd recommend following the generic 10gR2 database documentation for enabling this. I would strongly advise testing this feature in a sandbox environment before doing this in a mission-critical production environment. I would recommend that you pay close attention to timing-related artifacts that might result from the incremental overhead of enabling compression.
Regards,
Steven
Posted by Steven Chan | October 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:09