RE: Server Architecture
- From: Tanel Poder <tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:05:40 +0800
One good reason for separate sets of binaries is patching and patch testing
on one database without affecting others.
Having all installations under different Unix users (and also groups in this
case!) may be better for security but will make the everyday maintenance,
refreshes etc probably harder... as you'll have various problems with
permissioning and file access, need to constantly su between users,
chmod/chown files etc... that's unless you want to chmod 777 all your
directories & files, which would heavily go against the security principles
again.
I know quite many shops which use a separate software installation (and set
of database directories) for each database and it works well. You need to do
more manual work for applying patches for all software installations (unless
you use automatic provisioning of some sort), but you win in flexibility to
patch/upgrade only selected databased in the server instead of all.
Regarding different users for each database - this may be useful if you want
fine-grained separation of duties - by database. However this approach will
be useless if all your DBAs have access to all accounts anyway, in this case
you will just make your life harder without gaining any benefit. So you
should figure out if you really need all your Oracle installations under
different unix usernames and whether the benefit outweighs the maintenance
overhead.
In summary (YMMV):
- different oracle homes for each instance - YES
- different unix user for each oracle installation - NO ( use single unix
user and separate environment files for each instance ).
--
Regards,
Tanel Poder
http://blog.tanelpoder.com <http://blog.tanelpoder.com/>
_____
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andrew Kerber
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 21:56
To: satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Server Architecture
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 <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.
Other related posts:
