Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Does it matter where the binaries are?

Re: Does it matter where the binaries are?

From: Jeremiah Wilton <>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0503101416010.15646@cpq7598>

People die if your system goes down? And you're running it on a Toaster?

Please tell me you're not with the NHS :-)

I think "if a system goes down" is the key phrase here. What if that system is the filer? Or the network between the hosts and the filer? Or the host network adapter?

Will the project manager compensate the victims' families for deaths resulting from poor availability design?

Also regarding your one ORACLE_HOME idea: Upgrading involves opening the database and running a script, not just replacing the binaries. If you use one binary for all databases, then you will have to run the upgrade script simultaneously on all databases. Using one set of toaster-mounted binaries for all the databases connected to the storage is just a bad idea from an availability and managability standpoint. What if you have to apply a patch? Will you shut everyone down for that?

I apologize if this sounds too critical. You are right for asking these questions here.

Jeremiah Wilton
ORA-600 Consulting
Emergencies - Seminars - Hiring

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, stephen booth wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:29:10 -0600, jungwolf <> wrote:
>> Stephen,
>> I'm not sure why you are running a standby if everything is pointing
>> at the same filer (using NFS, right?).
> It's basically belt and braces. Some of these systems are safety
> critical, if a system goes down at the wrong time or if we lose the
> wrong bit of data then someone could end up dead before we can get the
> data out of paper records.
> More to the point the project manager likes the idea.
Received on Thu Mar 10 2005 - 17:31:01 CST

Original text of this message