I see what you are saying, but do you have a different Unix owner for each oracle_home?. I think the question is that they plan a different owner for each oracle home, instead of putting them all under the oracle account. That means a different crontab, etc. Thats where the maintenance really gets bad. On Jan 3, 2008 9:23 AM, Keith Moore <kmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We mostly use this architecture in production, i.e. one Unix account and > set > of binaries per instance. It has plusses and minuses. The plus is when > application A needs a patch, but applications B through E do not. With one > set > of binaries, the patch needs to be tested (in theory) on all applications. > > Or, Application A is on Oracle 9i and is upgraded to a new version that > requires 10g. But, applications B through E aren't supported on 10g. Or > are > supported on 10.2.0.1, but not 10.2.0.3. > > In my experience, the problems are endless. > > We also use Veritas clustering software and have the need to failover > individual databases to a different server. I'm not sure how that would > be > done without each database having it's own Oracle binaries, listener, etc. > > This architecture was decided before I arrived. I've done it both ways and > to > me, this way has less headaches. > > Keith > > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'