RE: two databases in a server
- From: "Ric Van Dyke" <ric.van.dyke@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tom@xxxxxxxxx>, "David Sharples" <davidsharples@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:04:59 -0600
Generally it's bad because there is a certain level of resource
consumption for an instance of any size. So pay the price ONCE and have
an instance large enough to do all the work needed by all the
applications using the database. There can be cases where multiple
instances on the same box are needed, but many cases that I have seen it
was not needed. Many times folks can use one instance (or at least
fewer instances) to get the work done.
Ric Van Dyke
Hotsos Enterprises
-----------------------
Hotsos Symposium, be there:
http://www.hotsos.com/portal/events/SYM06
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fox
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:53 PM
To: David Sharples
Cc: roger_xu@xxxxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: Re: two databases in a server
I've heard the argument before about having more than one instance on a
machine is a bad idea.
However, on the flip side, having 50 applications share one instance can
be bad, as if one app needs a particular patch, you're affecting 49
other
applications due to one application's requirements.
Anyone care to elaborate why more than one instance is bad?
--Tom
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, David Sharples wrote:
> by joining them into a single instance - that is best practise
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
