RE: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN

Matthew makes an excellent point about allowing freedom in the update rythym
by database and application. While in very high count database sites I worry
about the sheer cost of maintenance to have every database in its own home,
that can be workable with automated update systems where the human dbas only
need to deal with exceptions. Without automation you still need at least a
few. Three or four for a dozen or more databases can often work out as a
sweet spot, as long as you've got a good way to move a given database from
home to home. Likewise, the likelihood of different update rhythms between
applications is a good reason to think seriously about putting them in
separate databases.

 

Regards,

 

mwf

 

  _____  

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Matthew Zito
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:44 PM
To: sims@xxxxxxx; Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: RE: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN

 

 

I have both extremes - customers with 100+ instances running out of one
ORACLE_HOME, and customers that deploy one ORACLE_HOME for every instance.
We typically recommend the latter configuration, especially for production
environments, as it removes the, "Well, I don't want you to apply that patch
to *my* database" coupled with "But I *have* to get that patch applied to
*my* database" between two users sharing the same oracle_home.

Plus it allows you to do better privilege separation by running different
databases as different OS users.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matthew Zito
Chief Scientist
GridApp Systems
P: 646-452-4090
mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gridapp.com

<snip>

Other related posts: