Re: Exadata + OMCS

When you outsource db management, if they bill by the hour, then they have no qualms with choosing an architecture which has technical advantages but requires more hours to manage.

Even if they don't bill hourly, it's to their advantage to architect an environment that is technically "perfect" but highly complex... it reduces their liability and increases cost of management - and in the long run, you will pay for the complexity not them.

I would fight hard to keep things as simple as possible while meeting your business needs. And as Seth pointed out, there is plenty of competition in the managed services space - so if your current provider isn't able to meet your needs as a business then you should be able to find *someone* out there who can.

-J

PS... listener per database is actually very common, although personally i wouldn't default to this on a new system without justification. you lose all the benefits of scan! gns seems less common but scan gets used a lot and i think it's got some great advantages. but again, there's that "standards" discussion which is important.

--
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider


On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Stephens, Chris <Chris.Stephens_at_adm.com> wrote:


> I forgot to mention a separate listener for each database as well.  I

> haven't managed to figure out how that plays into VIPs/Scan for RAC yet.  I

> haven't managed to get access to a RAC database.

>

> "MORE SOFTWARE TO PATCH"

>

> I guess that is my biggest fear when the default is to create a new database

> for everything and a new home for every database.  Patching is easily my

> least favorite responsibility in my current role.

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