Re: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
- From: Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: mwf@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:47:13 -0500
We share a single database home among many instances on the same server
but don't have this problem. When we need to patch, we clone to a new
home and apply the patch there. Then "patching" the databases is a
simple as a quick restart on the new home (and running the patch script
if there is one). Much of this is scripted in our environment.
The "sheer cost of maintainance" is IHMO a good argument for shared
homes in large environments. Every copy of the binaries is another copy
that you have to maintain. But I think that the dedicated homes model
is a little more developed and widespread right now, so in a smaller
environment I'm not sure I'd move away from it.
I think the privilege separation is probably a rare requirement, but
you'd definitely need separate homes for it.
Actually we're also exploring the NFS idea right now too. We're
developing some interesting ideas around having the ORACLE_HOME on a
readonly NFS mount.
-Jeremy
Mark W. Farnham wrote:
>
> Matthew makes an excellent point about allowing freedom in the update
> rythym by database and application. While in very high count database
> sites I worry about the sheer cost of maintenance to have every
> database in its own home, that can be workable with automated update
> systems where the human dbas only need to deal with exceptions.
> Without automation you still need at least a few. Three or four for a
> dozen or more databases can often work out as a sweet spot, as long as
> you’ve got a good way to move a given database from home to home.
> Likewise, the likelihood of different update rhythms between
> applications is a good reason to think seriously about putting them in
> separate databases.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> mwf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Zito
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:44 PM
> *To:* sims@xxxxxxx; Oracle-L Freelists
> *Subject:* RE: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
>
>
>
>
>
> I have both extremes - customers with 100+ instances running out of
> one ORACLE_HOME, and customers that deploy one ORACLE_HOME for every
> instance. We typically recommend the latter configuration, especially
> for production environments, as it removes the, "Well, I don't want
> you to apply that patch to *my* database" coupled with "But I *have*
> to get that patch applied to *my* database" between two users sharing
> the same oracle_home.
>
> Plus it allows you to do better privilege separation by running
> different databases as different OS users.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> --
> Matthew Zito
> Chief Scientist
> GridApp Systems
> P: 646-452-4090
> mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.gridapp.com
>
> <snip>
>
--
Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL
http://www.ardentperf.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
