Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture

Hi Yong

We've gone with the traditional architecture so far, the primary reason for this is that administration scripts and utilities that use ORACLE_SID and/or TWO_TASK will all require rewriting to ensure they continue to work. Frankly, we have an incomplete handle on all the available scripts on our several hundred Oracle servers and almost no view of the ad-hoc etc scripts that development teams may have placed on our DB servers. Certifying and communicating the change is also a not insignificant effort for a pretty small Engineering team. That said our aim is definitely to migrate to the PDB architecture the 12.2 "family" of releases timescale. We absolutely do not want to be in a position where we *have* to move faster than we actually can! Similarly, we've not looked yet at FlexASM but we will do in a potential feature release.

I don't see single PDB being buggier than the traditional release (I can see that there will be bugs around the new features of multi-tenant) and its not true that there's no MGMTDB in a traditional architecture (and from 12.1.0.2 it will be a single instance pdb ! ).

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:02 PM Yong Huang <dmarc-noreply_at_freelists.org> wrote:

> When creating a 12c or 18c database without the multitenancy license, I
> can (1) create the database with one CDB and only one PDB, or (2) create
> the database in the traditional or non-CDB architecture. The advantage of
> (2) is possibly less buggy, less overhead (no mgmtdb on RAC for instance),
> and slightly easier management. But the disadvantage is that Oracle does
> not recommend it and that "(t)he non-CDB architecture was deprecated in
> Oracle Database 12c. It can be desupported and unavailable in a release
> after Oracle Database 19c."
>
> Short of a formal survey, I'd like to know which option you all have
> chosen. Thank you!
>
> Yong Huang
>

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info

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