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

Hi Jeff, all,

some brief comments inline with full disclosure and bias, I work for Oracle and in the MT dev. org. as product management.

> On Aug 30, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Chirco <backseatdba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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

This was supported as of day 1. See this <https://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-4266.pdf> jointly published whitepaper.

> 2. I wanted to go to 12c quicker than taking the time to learn multitenancy

Fair enough.

> 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.

Completely understandable.

> 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.

Did you do any quantitative analysis on compute cost and conservation, comparing the 2 deployment models - 4 stacked v. 4 PDBs in 1 CDB? It would have been very likely that you could run these same 4 DB envs. on smaller compute using MT. The question then becomes is it cost effective. Capex aside, you would also want to evaluate whether there are benefits to be gained from managing the container as a single entity or continue to manage as 4 distinct DB envs., and to evaluate whether you might gain from online DB agility such as online compute resize or online DB relocation as examples. Nearly all of our current MT customers have moved beyond the simple consolidation use case to explore DBaaS offerings and what MT might bring to those envs.

There are caveats to all software....you might hit bugs or functional limitations, but we are committed to identify, prioritize and fix them.

>
> 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.

Way...way above my pay grade...

apologies if this sounds like I am proselytizing...

thx
jpm

>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25 PM Juan Miranda <jmirandavigo_at_hotmail.com <mailto: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> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org>] En nombre de Mladen Gogala
> Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de agosto de 2018 17:11
> Para: oracle-l_at_freelists.org <mailto: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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.freelists.org_webpage_oracle-2Dl&d=DwMFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=eVHM5137MVmvnDIuiRpce1B948AiZdid6KgUiIy45rk&m=JNlV1FSC-orRhijbUURGbPlgYEX-Z-b7geK-q45Jb0E&s=CnF0vOahQFkw4RJPIBIOz2MF9AbtmKlFbV9Vh-262Uo&e=>
>
>

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