RE: Server Architecture

As for "maintenance headache" in terms of patching :

1. 5 seperate servers means 5 seperate oracle_homes means that a patch has to be applied 5 times
2. virtualisation of 1 phsyical server into 5 virtual servers still means 5 seperate oracle_homes and a patch having to be applied 5 times
3. 1 server with 5 seperate oracle_homes is still the same as options 1 and 2.

As for "single point of failure", this could well be in a failover cluster to provide protection from server failure.

As for "licencing", if it were 5 servers of 2 CPUs each, licencing costs would be for 10 CPUs. And management would be unhappy to see CPUs on some of these servers being underutilised.
One single larger server with , say, 4 to 8 CPUs, might handle all 5 databases at a lower licencing cost.
True virtualistaion can lower the cost.
But if these were larger environments, say 5 servers of 4 CPUs versus 1 server of 16 CPUs, virtualisation might not be able to deliver as well.

The advantage of sharing multiple CPUs is that there is lesser "slack" in CPU usage.

Hemant K Chitale

At 09:26 PM Thursday, Freeman, Donald wrote:
>I'm certainly not the most experienced DBA on this board but It
>sounds like virtualization without the virtual. It sounds like a
>single point of failure for 5 databases and, yes, it sounds like a
>big maintenance headache. I don't see a licensing impact. You
>have to license for the number of processors on the box
>regardless. Why not virtualize?
>
>Donald Freeman
>Database Administrator II
>Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
>Department of Health
>Bureau of Information Technology
>2150 Herr Street
>Harrisburg, PA 17103
><mailto:dofreeman_at_state.pa.us>dofreeman_at_state.pa.us
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
>[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Satheesh Babu.S
>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:49 AM
>To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
>Subject: Server Architecture
>
>All,
> We have been proposed with following architecture by our
> consultant. I need your expert opinion on this.
>
> Assume a server got 5 database and all the databases running in
> same oracle version and patchset.
>They are proposing to create 5 unix account. Each unix account will
>have one oracle binaries and corresponding oracle DB. Apart from
>that each unix account will have dedicated mountpoints. In broader
>sense each unix account will be logically considered as one server.
>
> I am slightly worried about this architecture. Because when this
> architecture goes to production, the impact it will have on
> maintenace going to be huge. Assuming i am having minimum 100 db in
> production( ours is a very large shop) and if i need to apply one
> patch to all these servers going to kill us. Secondly, will there
> be a impact on licensing. I don't think so, but like to check it up
> with you guys. I know it has got some advantage too. But is this
> approach is suitable for large shop like us?
>
>Regards,
>Satheesh Babu.S
>Bangalore

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