Re: Server Architecture
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:42:14 -0600
I see what you are saying, but do you have a different Unix owner for each oracle_home?. I think the question is that they plan a different owner for each oracle home, instead of putting them all under the oracle account. That means a different crontab, etc. Thats where the maintenance really gets bad.
On Jan 3, 2008 9:23 AM, Keith Moore <kmoore_at_zephyrus.com> wrote:
> We mostly use this architecture in production, i.e. one Unix account and
> of binaries per instance. It has plusses and minuses. The plus is when
> application A needs a patch, but applications B through E do not. With one
> of binaries, the patch needs to be tested (in theory) on all applications.
> Or, Application A is on Oracle 9i and is upgraded to a new version that
> requires 10g. But, applications B through E aren't supported on 10g. Or
> supported on 10.2.0.1, but not 10.2.0.3.
> In my experience, the problems are endless.
> We also use Veritas clustering software and have the need to failover
> individual databases to a different server. I'm not sure how that would
> done without each database having it's own Oracle binaries, listener, etc.
> This architecture was decided before I arrived. I've done it both ways and
> me, this way has less headaches.
> >> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> >> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Satheesh
> >> Babu.S
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:49 AM
> >> To:
> >> oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> >> Subject: Server
> >> Architecture
> >> All,
> >> 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
> >> and
> >> patchset.
> >> They are proposing to create 5 unix account. Each unix account
> >> will have one oracle binaries and corresponding oracle DB. Apart from
> >> each
> >> unix account will have dedicated mountpoints. In broader sense each
> >> 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
> >> to
> >> be huge. Assuming i am having minimum 100 db in production( ours is a
> >> large
> >> shop) and if i need to apply one patch to all these servers going to
> >> 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
> >> approach is suitable for large shop like us?
> >> Regards,
> >> Satheesh Babu.S
> >> Bangalore
-- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.' -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Jan 03 2008 - 09:42:14 CST