RE: Heads Up on Grid Control 10.2
- From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ORACLE-L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:47:23 -0400
You'd need a lot of oracle_homes. That being said, the question is, is
the difficulty of having lots of ohomes larger than the difficulty in
having to patch one oracle_home that then patches a bunch of databases
at once. I have seen companies follow the one-per model even for
clusters like you describe - not to sixty, but to 10-nodes managing
approximately 30-40 databases, with each database having 1-5 instances
across some combination of nodes.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 3:33 PM
> To: ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Heads Up on Grid Control 10.2
>
> >>>
> >>>See, we're seeing a move away from shared Oracle homes.
> In fact, the
> >>>last 5-10 large organizations we were talking to deployed one
> >>>ORACLE_HOME for every instance on the box (and most of
> them deployed
> >>>a separate ORACLE_HOME for their listener as well).
>
> So in a failover HA cluster environment (large cluster) with
> a lot of small to medium database (say, 60 of them), how many
> Oracle Homes would this take? :
>
> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/wp_VMDB_BC_v05.pdf
>
> I think consolidation might start to challenge the idea that
> a box has a database wich has a home. Thoughts ?
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
