Re: two databases in a server

Hi Tom,

These are two extreme.

• 30 servers with two DB's - too much efforts unless proper software management/deployment method plus monitoring is implemented.
• Having 30 DB's on single machine is another extreme because one going "crazy" will impact others. Monitoring can be also a bit more difficult in this case. Also big machines with many DBs and many disks are less stable and boot time can be quite high in case it goes down or needs to be rebooted.

I would prefer in this case something in the middle - like 5 machines each hosting 6 DBs. Here you can flexibility to group them to get more convenient maintenance windows as well as limit system outage impact.

Cheers,
Alex

2006/3/30, oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org>:

> Michael,
>
> What you say is the reason the PC as database server revolution is
> slowly dieing out. Many servers means many licenses. One large server
> means one larger license. There is a significant cost savings.
>
> And as you said, manageability. I would much rather manage 30 databases
> on one server than thirty servers and thirty databases.
>
> Separate Oracle Homes where needed, and we are in business!
>
> Tom

--
Best regards,
Alex Gorbachev

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l