Re: Server Architecture

Patching and Upgrading -- the very "nightmare" reasons are also justifiable reasons for seperation.

If the 5 databases are "independent" (eg are different COTS packages) {they are running on one server because IT Management has decided to buy 1 very large server} and one of them is ready or *needs* to upgrade from 9i to 10g, it would need a seperate oracle_home.

If one of them 5 needs a specific one-off patch and management doesn't want to have to test and risk the patch on the other 4 databases, it needs a seperate
oracle_home.

As for "maintenance nightmare" how many times would all 5 application owners agree to allow a) shutdown of their databases at the same time b) applying patches at the same time ? {Imagine that you 5 seperate servers running 5 databases. What would be feasible ? Getting signoffs from 5 application teams concurrently ?} If all 5 share the same oracle_home, what is the probability of getting concurrent downtime to apply 1 CPU patch ?

Also, have you seen files (binaries, *.ora, config files etc) mistakenly deleted
or overwritten ? It does happen. A single oracle_home and one image file brings down all 5 databases.

Why also have seperate unix accounts ? A simple "ps -ef" easily seperates processes. A "kill -9" <wrongPIDnumber> cannot kill another database process because it is running under another account.

Hemant K Chitale

At 09:55 PM Thursday, Andrew Kerber wrote:
>It does sound like a real maintenance nightmare. What is the
>problem they are trying to solve that requires 5 identical sets of
>binaries under 5 different users, as opposed to (worst case
>normally), 1 set of binaries and 5 instances?
>
>On Jan 2, 2008 11:49 PM, Satheesh Babu.S
><<mailto:satheeshbabu.s_at_gmail.com>satheeshbabu.s_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>--
>Andrew W. Kerber
>
>'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

Hemant K Chitale

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