Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:27:28 -0400
Oh, of course! And it is indeed about everyone's perspective. Without coming off sounding like a corporate shill (which I am generally not, I hope), a lot of our customers use our automated patching that's integrated with Veritas to make having one home per instance a non-issue, at which point the only extra overhead is the cost of more-expensive SAN disk space.
But, this also has the advantage that it's actually feasible to easily patch a subset of databases without patching the whole.
From: Finn Jorgensen [mailto:finn.oracledba_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Matthew Zito
Cc: joe_dba_at_hotmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: veritas
It's different for everybody. In my case I might have 20 databases on each node and the ability to fail each individually between the nodes. If they're all the same Oracle version then your solution would require 20 different oracle homes with all the hassles of patching etc that comes with that. No one solution is perfect. You have to pick one that has the least problems for you. They all have some amount of problems. IMO of course.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com> wrote:
Having an Oracle_home on each node is ill-advised in my opinion. It is too easy, and I have seen it happen far too many times, that something happens to the passive node's ORACLE_HOME that is only discovered when a failover event occurs. Having one ORACLE_HOME that is on the SAN and shared between nodes is ideal
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Wed Oct 01 2008 - 13:27:28 CDT