RE: Server Architecture

  • From: "Baumgartel, Paul" <paul.baumgartel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:51:05 -0500

Agreed.  We use separate binaries per database, but all owned by oracle.
Separate listeners, too.
 

Paul Baumgartel 
CREDIT SUISSE 
Information Technology 
Securities Processing Databases Americas 
One Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10010 
USA 
Phone 212.538.1143 
paul.baumgartel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
www.credit-suisse.com 

 

________________________________

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tanel Poder
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:06 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Server Architecture


One good reason for separate sets of binaries is patching and patch
testing on one database without affecting others. 
 
Having all installations under different Unix users (and also groups in
this case!) may be better for security but will make the everyday
maintenance, refreshes etc probably harder... as you'll have various
problems with permissioning and file access, need to constantly su
between users, chmod/chown files etc... that's unless you want to chmod
777 all your directories & files, which would heavily go against the
security principles again.
 
I know quite many shops which use a separate software installation (and
set of database directories) for each database and it works well. You
need to do more manual work for applying patches for all software
installations (unless you use automatic provisioning of some sort), but
you win in flexibility to patch/upgrade only selected databased in the
server instead of all.
 
Regarding different users for each database - this may be useful if you
want fine-grained separation of duties - by database. However this
approach will be useless if all your DBAs have access to all accounts
anyway, in this case you will just make your life harder without gaining
any benefit. So you should figure out if you really need all your Oracle
installations under different unix usernames and whether the benefit
outweighs the maintenance overhead. 
 
In summary (YMMV):
 
- different oracle homes for each instance - YES
- different unix user for each oracle installation - NO ( use single
unix user and separate environment files for each instance ).
 
--
Regards,
Tanel Poder
http://blog.tanelpoder.com <http://blog.tanelpoder.com/> 

 



________________________________

        From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Kerber
        Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 21:56
        To: satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: Server Architecture
        
        
        It does sound like a real maintenance nightmare.  What is the
problem they are trying to solve that requires 5 identical sets of
binaries under 5 different users, as opposed to (worst case normally), 1
set of binaries and 5 instances? 
        
        
        On Jan 2, 2008 11:49 PM, Satheesh Babu.S
<satheeshbabu.s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        

                All,
                 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. 


==============================================================================
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications 
disclaimer: 

http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
==============================================================================

Other related posts: