| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: 100 instances on same server !!!
100 instances is way too much even (especially?) if Win2K is the OS in
question.
Each instance means another service, and each service means spawning and
maintaining
multithreaded process... On Windows half of available RAM is taken by
default for kernel
processes and the other half is all that all other apps can hope to get. In
your case with
4 GB of RAM on the system each of 100 instances will be getting 20 generous
MB. Not
enough by any means, not even considering way too many threads that will
befell (say
max 4?) CPUs.
Having said that, le'mee admit a sin: we run with success (meaning nobody
complains
about performance) 28 concurrent development instances on powerful (at least
it used
to be 4 years ago) 4x450 PIII Xeon CPUs with full 1GB of RAM and 21 x 18 GB
HDD in
few RAID 5 containers (sorry for violating BAARF principles). Although we do
run overly
large number of instances on a single Windows NT 4 box, in reality most of
them are
used sparsely, and that's why getting away with it seems to work.
Now back to your case - I'd warmly advise to reconsider one box running 100
instances
assumption. Whatever you put there - will likely melt.
On the other hand if your all 100 of your workstations are same, or form few
groups
of same hardware, investing in 512 MB of RAM for each of 100 workstations
(should
be much cheaper comparatively) and in 100 licenses (at approx $30 each) for
Norton
Ghost Enterprise then:
Fiddling with Ghost is NOT a DBA job, but any sysadmin type should pull it with ease (and gratitude, if I may say so ;-).
Branimir
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:54 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Thanks for the replies so far. Considering the fact that my database is tiny
( just around 3 GB ), How many of them can work on same server? I can just
test with 5 instances, with limited hardware. Will the CPUs be able to take
load of 100 instances? Is it worth experimenting this?
I am on 8.1.7.4 and the application is already built. I stand no chance of changing the code. That is why using individual schemas for individual users is not an option. Right now I am just asked if 100 instances can run on same server and I don't have solid answer.
Just on side note, can I ask, What is the maximum number of instances anyone has ever worked/heard being installed with in same server?
Thanks again.
Dilip.
100 instances wohhhhh . If you are in 9i look at possibilities like context or label security . or creating another schema .
-ak
> I have not heard installing hundred database instances on same server. > Maybe you should think creating one instance, and then hundred schemas in > it. > > Guang > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Dilip Patel wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Need some suggestions/Input. > > > > My application database is 8.1.7, NOARCHIVELOG, WIN200, > > total size 4 GB, more of single user OLTP client-server application. > > > > Now the customer wants to give training on this application to hundredtrainees
> > client workstations. > > > > The reasons for installing all instances on same machine are > > - to avoid re-installing databases on 100 workstations after each roundof
> > training. > > - No user should see any other user's data. > > > > Please suggest if this approach is feasible or is it at all possible.Tested this with upto 5 instances, and
> > this setup. > > > > Thanks in advance for your time. > > > > Dilip. > > > > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net<http://www.orafaq.net>
> -- > Author: Guang Mei > INET: gmei_at_incyte.com <mailto:gmei_at_incyte.com> > > Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com <http://www.fatcity.com> > San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services > ---------------------------------------------------------------------> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com <mailto:ListGuru_at_fatcity.com> (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). >
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net <http://www.orafaq.net> -- Author: AK INET: oramagic_at_hotmail.com <mailto:oramagic_at_hotmail.com> Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com <http://www.fatcity.com> San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com <mailto:ListGuru_at_fatcity.com> (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-LReceived on Thu Aug 07 2003 - 18:39:29 CDT
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Branimir Petrovic INET: BranimirP_at_cpas.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
 |
 |