RE: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:41:35 -0400
Message-ID: <858A8C808F33444794BA9C5F817308CD_at_rsiz.com>
Matthew makes an excellent point about allowing freedom in the update rythym by database and application. While in very high count database sites I worry about the sheer cost of maintenance to have every database in its own home, that can be workable with automated update systems where the human dbas only need to deal with exceptions. Without automation you still need at least a few. Three or four for a dozen or more databases can often work out as a sweet spot, as long as you've got a good way to move a given database from home to home. Likewise, the likelihood of different update rhythms between applications is a good reason to think seriously about putting them in separate databases.
Regards,
mwf
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of Matthew Zito
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:44 PM
To: sims_at_suu.edu; Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: RE: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
I have both extremes - customers with 100+ instances running out of one ORACLE_HOME, and customers that deploy one ORACLE_HOME for every instance. We typically recommend the latter configuration, especially for production environments, as it removes the, "Well, I don't want you to apply that patch to *my* database" coupled with "But I *have* to get that patch applied to *my* database" between two users sharing the same oracle_home.
Plus it allows you to do better privilege separation by running different databases as different OS users.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Zito
Chief Scientist
GridApp Systems
P: 646-452-4090
mzito_at_gridapp.com
http://www.gridapp.com
<snip>
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu May 14 2009 - 17:41:35 CDT