RE: Server Architecture

  • From: "Freeman, Donald" <dofreeman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:26:01 -0500

I'm certainly not the most experienced DBA on this board but It sounds
like virtualization without the virtual.   It sounds like a single point
of failure for 5 databases and, yes, it sounds like a big maintenance
headache.  I don't see a  licensing impact.  You have to license for the
number of processors on the box regardless.    Why not virtualize? 
Donald Freeman
Database Administrator II
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Health
Bureau of Information Technology
2150 Herr Street
Harrisburg, PA 17103


From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Satheesh Babu.S
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:49 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Server Architecture

 We have been proposed with following architecture by our consultant. I
need your expert opinion on this.
 Assume a server got 5 database and all the databases running in same
oracle version and patchset. 
They are proposing to create 5 unix account. Each unix account will have
one oracle binaries and corresponding oracle DB. Apart from that each
unix account will have dedicated mountpoints. In broader sense each unix
account will be logically considered as one server. 

 I am slightly worried about this architecture. Because when this
architecture goes to production, the impact it will have on maintenace
going to be huge. Assuming i am having minimum 100 db in production(
ours is a very large shop) and if i need to apply one patch to all these
servers going to kill us. Secondly, will there be a impact on licensing.
I don't think so, but like to check it up with you guys. I know it has
got some advantage too. But is this approach is suitable for large shop
like us? 

Satheesh Babu.S

Other related posts: