FreeLists / oracle-l / Re: Server Architecture

[Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx>satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx> 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