different upgrade cycles/version requirements. i've run into that one too many times. On 5/10/05, david wendelken <davewendelken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Consider a database hosting 3 different unrelated applicatons. >=20 > >Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that we would never have such a > >database, it would be very unlikely. Far more likely would be three > >different instances (and associated databases) on the same box, each > >instance named for the application it hosted. >=20 > Short of national security concerns, why would you want the extra overhea= d of two additional database instances instead of just using three schemas = in one instance? >=20 >=20 > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l