Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:12:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKsxbLoMU94uSCRnJYJSM8kF8FDgz-Vggx9Q5HbOTXE1SKHMMA_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:32 AM MacGregor, Ian A. <ian_at_slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I personally was hesitant to move to a new version of the database and to
> switch to a new architecture at the same time. We have stayed with the
> non-cdb architecture.
>
>
> I remember a panel discussion when multi tenancy was first introduced
> which responded to the question of why MSSQL had "the same thing for
> free". with you really cannot compare the two, imitating the MSSQL
> approach to multitenancy was inferior.
>
>
> How do they differ?
>
>
>
> Ian A. MacGregor
> SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> on
> behalf of Jeff Chirco <backseatdba_at_gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:41 AM
> *To:* oracle-l-freelist
> *Subject:* Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
>
> I'ved asked this question over the last couple year to various consultants
> and I think on here once. It seemed like the majority of response I got
> where that people where still doing the non-CDB traditional install in
> Production. I went with traditional install for a few reasons
> 1. In the beginning of testing NetApp storage snaps didn't support PDBs or
> 12.2. They do now
> 2. I wanted to go to 12c quicker than taking the time to learn multitenancy
> 3. Plus we are migrating from Windows to Linux and 11.2.0.4 to 12.2.01 at
> the same time so wanted to limit the amount of things changing and learning
> at once.
> 4. We have 4 databases running on this one server and I just though it was
> silly to have 4 CDBs with 1 PDB each. Maybe this isn't, I don't know.
>
> I really feel that Multitenancy should be included at no cost. If they
> want to de-support traditional install and force us this route it should be
> included. Like someone said MSSQL already has this. Or drop the price.
> $17,500 per cpu is crazy. If they want use to use it and promote it, it
> needs to be included or cheap enough that it is a no-brainier.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25 PM Juan Miranda <jmirandavigo_at_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Totally agree.
>
> More cost and more complex administration; just what we need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> En nombre de Mladen Gogala
> Enviado el: miƩrcoles, 29 de agosto de 2018 17:11
> Para: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Asunto: Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
>
> Hi Neil!
>
> Multi-tenant doesn't make any sense because the resources it will save
> are much, much cheaper than the cost of the multi-tenant option. Also,
> the competitors (DB2, SQL Server, SAP Hana) are all allowing creation of
> additional databases for free. I don't see why would I need to pay for
> the same feature with Oracle?
>
> Regards
>
>
> On 08/29/2018 09:23 AM, Neil Chandler wrote:
> > Personally I think multi-tenant a decent feature but it is cost
> > prohibitive for what you get in return.
>
> --
> Mladen Gogala
> Database Consultant
> Tel: (347) 321-1217
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Aug 30 2018 - 20:12:12 CEST