Re: Server Architecture
- From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx, satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:46:00 +0800
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
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
