RE: Server Architecture

From: Freeman, Donald <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:26:01 -0500
Message-ID: <51327ABA927BEF4B96590554CEA7832C0C1FB4D9@enhbgpri05.backup>

I'm certainly not the most experienced DBA on this board but It sounds like virtualization without the virtual. It sounds like a single point of failure for 5 databases and, yes, it sounds like a big maintenance headache. I don't see a licensing impact. You have to license for the number of processors on the box regardless. Why not virtualize?  

Donald Freeman
Database Administrator II
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Health
Bureau of Information Technology
2150 Herr Street
Harrisburg, PA 17103    

[] On Behalf Of Satheesh Babu.S Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:49 AM To:
Subject: Server Architecture

 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?

Satheesh Babu.S

Received on Thu Jan 03 2008 - 07:26:01 CST

Original text of this message