RE: DB12c in Production?
- From: Peter Sharman <pete.sharman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx, Iggy Fernandez <iggy_fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
+1 on what Hans said.
Even after using DB12c for quite some time, I ***STILL*** find myself doing a
connect / as sysdba and ending up connected to the CDB instead of the PDB.
SHOW CON_ID or SHOW CON_NAME is one of my most frequently used commands. ;)
Old habits die hard, especially for those of us that have been around too long.
Pete
Pete Sharman
Principal Product Manager
Enterprise Manager Product Suite
33 Benson Crescent CALWELL ACT 2905 AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61262924095 | | Fax: +61262925183 | | Mobile: +61414443449
"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
"Oh no, it's not, it's much harder than that!"
Bruce Pihlamae, long term Oracle DBA
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Forbrich [mailto:fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:24 PM
To: Iggy Fernandez
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: DB12c in Production?
On 18/05/2014 6:18 PM, Iggy Fernandez wrote:
>
> What are the advantages of using a CDB with a single pluggable
> database (as appears to be allowed without extra cost when using
> Enterprise Edition) instead of a non-CDB?
>
> Iggy
Biggest advantage is getting used to the new architecture - the older
architecture is officially known as "pre-12c" and based on that terminology we
suspect it will phase out.
My experience is that we need to plan at least 6 months getting adjusted
to the CDB concept and fixing scripts, etc. Switch is not going to be
a cake-walk, so the sooner we start looking at it seriously ...
Other than that, it gives a whole new way of thinking about and handling
backups, migrations, duplications, PITR, etc. - think 'transportable database'
to get started.
I suspect we have not begun to see the tip of this iceberg.
/Hans
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
