RE: Server Architecture

  • From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: dofreeman@xxxxxxxxxxx, <satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:54:35 +0800

As for "maintenance headache" in terms of patching  :

1. 5 seperate servers means 5 seperate oracle_homes means that a patch has to be applied 5 times 2. virtualisation of 1 phsyical server into 5 virtual servers still means 5 seperate oracle_homes and a patch having to be applied 5 times
3.  1 server with 5 seperate oracle_homes is still the same as options 1 and 2.

As for "single point of failure",  this could well be in a failover cluster
to provide protection from server failure.

As for "licencing",  if it were 5 servers of 2 CPUs each, licencing costs would
be for 10 CPUs.  And management would be unhappy to see CPUs on some
of these servers being underutilised.
One single larger server with , say, 4 to 8 CPUs, might handle all 5 databases
at a lower licencing cost.
True virtualistaion can lower the cost.
But if these were larger environments, say 5 servers of 4 CPUs   versus
1 server of 16 CPUs,  virtualisation might not be able to deliver as well.

The advantage of sharing multiple CPUs is that there is lesser "slack" in CPU usage.

Hemant K Chitale

At 09:26 PM Thursday, Freeman, Donald wrote:
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: