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

Hi John thanks for your comments. Regarding NetApp - I was on Windows and I don't think it was supported on that platform. If it was then I was told or read wrong back then.
I never did any tests with 4 traditional vs 4 PDBs and 1 CDB or 4 on 4. That would be a good test and I am sure I might be surprised. I should test that. We have a small footprint and maybe it could help with our CPU utilization. And having only to patch the one database is really convenient but then again its just the 4 on this server. But then again saving time anywhere is beneficial.

Jeff

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:33 AM John Mchugh <john.mchugh_at_oracle.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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: miércoles, 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
>> <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