I personally was hesitant to move to a new version of the database and to
switch to a new architecture at the same time. We have stayed with the
non-cdb architecture.
I remember a panel discussion when multi tenancy was first introduced which
responded to the question of why MSSQL had "the same thing for free". with
you really cannot compare the two, imitating the MSSQL approach to
multitenancy was inferior.
How do they differ?
Ian A. MacGregor
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
________________________________
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Jeff Chirco <backseatdba@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:41 AM
To: oracle-l-freelist
Subject: Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
I'ved asked this question over the last couple year to various consultants and
I think on here once. It seemed like the majority of response I got where that
people where still doing the non-CDB traditional install in Production. I went
with traditional install for a few reasons
1. In the beginning of testing NetApp storage snaps didn't support PDBs or
12.2. They do now
2. I wanted to go to 12c quicker than taking the time to learn multitenancy
3. Plus we are migrating from Windows to Linux and 11.2.0.4 to 12.2.01 at the
same time so wanted to limit the amount of things changing and learning at once.
4. We have 4 databases running on this one server and I just though it was
silly to have 4 CDBs with 1 PDB each. Maybe this isn't, I don't know.
I really feel that Multitenancy should be included at no cost. If they want to
de-support traditional install and force us this route it should be included.
Like someone said MSSQL already has this. Or drop the price. $17,500 per cpu
is crazy. If they want use to use it and promote it, it needs to be included
or cheap enough that it is a no-brainier.
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25 PM Juan Miranda
<jmirandavigo@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jmirandavigo@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Totally agree.
More cost and more complex administration; just what we need.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] En
nombre de Mladen Gogala
Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de agosto de 2018 17:11
Para: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
Hi Neil!
Multi-tenant doesn't make any sense because the resources it will save
are much, much cheaper than the cost of the multi-tenant option. Also,
the competitors (DB2, SQL Server, SAP Hana) are all allowing creation of
additional databases for free. I don't see why would I need to pay for
the same feature with Oracle?
Regards
On 08/29/2018 09:23 AM, Neil Chandler wrote:
Personally I think multi-tenant a decent feature but it is cost
prohibitive for what you get in return.
