Re: Multiple (SYSADM) Schemas in a Peoplesoft Database

Disk is not cheap? 6.3 TB from DELL on a spiffy MD3000 is $16,000....list.. T-e-r-a-b-y-t-e-s.
Might put be back $10,000 with a typical discount

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

> David Kurtz wrote,on my timestamp of 21/05/2009 2:14 AM:
>
>> It is supported, but it is not recommended by PeopleSoft/Oracle.
>>
>
> My take on that is very few people have even bothered trying
> it and neither Oracle nor Peoplesoft ever encouraged it.
>
> Which flies in the face of the "run lots of apps on a single
> instance with RAC", "server consolidation" and all
> the other yadda-yadda of Oracle marketing...
>
>
> There are a number of drawbacks including and not limited to:
>> * You have to back and restore the databases together. The only to backup
>> and restore one of several PeopleSoft databases in the same Oracle
>> database
>> would be via export/import.
>>
>
> You have to back all instances anyway, so
> having to back up one large instance or two smaller ones
> makes no difference whatsoever.
>
>
> * If the database goes down, then all the PeopleSoft systems become
>> unavailable.
>>
>
> True. But is that still the case if it is on RAC?
>
>
> * If all the databases are in the same database server then the same
>> database parameters apply to all. You cannot control them separately.
>>
>
>
> True. But with login triggers, it is simplicity itself
> to set different parameters for each session connecting
> as each schema owner/psdbowner. I do this regularly to
> run multiple applications in the same instance, each on
> its schema. Why should it be different for Peoplesoft?
>
>
> In the end there is very little saving to be made, and it is at the price
>> of
>> considerable complication and loss of flexibility.
>> I simply would not do it.
>>
>
> Disagree. UNDO and temp disk space are not trivial or
> "little" savings. Further, RAC is a common push from Oracle:
> to have multiple RAC instances on multiple RAC clusters
> is simply prohibitive from the licensing and hardware
> resources point of view.
> And no: disk is most definitely NOT cheap.
>
> Unfortunately, no one is taking the right message
> to the PPS/Oracle responsible people. Maybe a few
> public outings will change that?
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

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