RE: oinstall group (hopefully not a stupid question)

It does add finer control of who can mess with the Oracle software, and I've seen both ways work with no real problems as long as one way or the other is a company wide policy, or at least (if you go the oinstall route) all releases after some release number are all oinstall.  

I marginally prefer KISS, but if cleaning up group membership in dba is too big a task or if there is a real fence between installer/updaters and operational dbas it can be worth it.  

I've also seen dba1, dba2, etc. for multiple groups updating and patching on the same machine, but "we each own and manage our own copy of the database software." Well that notion goes *splat* on the orainventory file, of which you get to have exactly one of active at a time per machine. (And tell me quickly if someone has solved that little nugget.)  

Sarbox folks tend to like it if they understand it. That and limiting who can screw up the software even more than who can break an individual database is *probably* why Oracle recommends it.  

mwf  

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Closson
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:04 PM
To: ORACLE-L
Subject: oinstall group (hopefully not a stupid question)    

Looking for general consensus here. Do people really set up an oinstall group and make that the oracle owner default group? Since this is not mandatory, does anyone have sage words on why this is recommended in Oracle install guides?

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l