different upgrade cycles/version requirements. i've run into that one
too many times.
On 5/10/05, david wendelken <davewendelken_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Consider a database hosting 3 different unrelated applicatons.
>=20
> >Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that we would never have such a
> >database, it would be very unlikely. Far more likely would be three
> >different instances (and associated databases) on the same box, each
> >instance named for the application it hosted.
>=20
> Short of national security concerns, why would you want the extra overhea=
d of two additional database instances instead of just using three schemas =
in one instance?
>=20
>=20
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Tue May 10 2005 - 16:11:53 CDT
