The classic "it depends". We use a non-standard (read: not oracle) name due an
audit. The argument was that is lessens the attack surface area for a hacker.
But I also have 24 qa/dev databases on a single server and I can't imagine
having to maintain 24 separate oracle_homes on a single server. That would,
indeed, be a nightmare, in addition to using (wasting?) a lot disk space.
Not sure why the SA has the final say in this....seems more like a mgt decision
to me. Now, if the SA is your manager, then all bets are off! :)
-joe
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Scott Canaan
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 9:37 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Database Owner Question (O/S)
We always install Oracle and create the databases under the O/S user oracle in
Linux. Our SA has decided that each database should be running under its own
user, not oracle. Apparently, this is possible. My questions are: Is anyone
doing this? Is it even supported? It seems to me that it would be a nightmare
keeping track of the different users that each database is running under.
Scott Canaan '88 (srcdco@xxxxxxx<mailto:srcdco@xxxxxxx>)
(585) 475-7886 - work (585) 339-8659 - cell
"Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it."
- Tom Lehrer
Confidentiality Note: This message contains information that may be
confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should not use, copy, disclose, distribute or take any action based on this
message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Although ICAT, Underwriters
at Lloyd's, Syndicate 4242, scans e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does
not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for any
damage sustained as a result of viruses. Thank you.
