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. > > 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? > > Regards, > Satheesh Babu.S > Bangalore > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'