Re: Oracle question from a Sys. admin, re: Solaris performance

Connor wrote:

>My only contention with that many database/instances is a different
>kind of risk - that of human error. If all the databases could be
>consolidated into (say) a single database, then (theoretically) its
>less backup mechanics, less maintenance of things that are possibly
>common (user accounts, some tablespaces etc), less distributed
>maintenance for where those systems need to talk to each other etc.

Of course, this can just as easily be turned around to say, if someone screws up a restore, would you rather lose one customer than 50? And basically anything that requires database closure will affect everybody... I've just about convinced myself, at least, this situation requires 50 instances, unless they've got a really weaselly SLA. Performance sometimes takes a back seat to requirements. I'd guess they are still better off than buying 50 $5K intel boxes, RAC and a SAN. I'd sure like to see some v$parameters from all those instances, though.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
That's funny, I don't feel Tardis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4326005.stm