Thanks, that is one of main reasons I want to start using service names. Wish it was done earlier. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Schneider < jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would add that even if there's not obvious benefit right away, you > should still definitely use service names to connect. (Both > standalone and RAC, as Andrew said.) > > The key reason being that you're keeping your options open in the > future. Maybe it doesn't matter right now - but have your developers > setup their apps to use services anyway. Maybe someday down the road > you'll want to use resource manager to limit the CPU that one > particular app uses, or maybe you'll just want to quickly/easily see > on the OEM graphs how much CPU is even used by different apps. Or > maybe some other benefit that services give you... there are many. :) > > -J > -- > http://about.me/jeremy_schneider > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Most places use service names for RAC and non-RAC. It has many uses > related > > to workload separation. A common one is to distinguish between a primary > and > > a standby open in read only or read only with apply. You don't need to > > change your tnsnames entry if you do a switch over. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Steve Harville <steve.harville@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Jeff, > > It is a good practice, especially on RAC. We create services for each > > distinct workload. For instance the Warehouse Operations group use a > service > > that is different from the Order Management group. This way we can "pin" > one > > type of workload to it's own node and another type of workload to a > > different node. This reduces the interconnect traffic between nodes since > > the different services are not updating the same data blocks. > > Steve > > > > On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 2:44:29 PM Jeff C <backseatdba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Does anybody use or have experience with using multiple Service Names > for > >> your database? Is this a normal thing people do? I have a database > that is > >> a mix of a bunch of different applications and I would like to better > >> identify them from database connection and so giving them their own > service > >> name to connect to seems like the perfect fit. One thing I did noticed > that > >> we will have to be careful about is if you restore that database to the > same > >> server with a different name and you don't change the service name > parameter > >> then the listener will pick up that service name and your users may be > going > >> to the restored database and not production. > >> Any other things to think about and/or is this a bad practice? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jeff >