Re: Server Architecture
- From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx, Oracle L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:25:49 -0800 (PST)
If they're all on the same patch level today, why introduce all the
ORACLE_HOMEs today? Personally, I'd keep them all on the same ORACLE_HOME now
and when one wants to patch and the others aren't ready, spin up a new
ORACLE_HOME, patch it, then migrate the DB in question to use the new
ORACLE_HOME at that point. That way, if you don't run into patching conflicts,
you'll never need the extra ORACLE_HOMEs. Is there something wrong with my
logic?
Dan
----- Original Message ----
From: Tanel Poder <tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx>
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:05:40 AM
Subject: RE: Server Architecture
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
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:
