Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 18:58:55 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR07MB490138A9A6CE55348EC76663E20F0_at_BYAPR07MB4901.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you, there has been a case where Oracle made a paid for option free. Before Oracle 6 there was the Transaction Processing Option which at extra cost provided the row level locking and non-blocking of readers which is now standard. If you already had TPO you received the Procedural Option at no cost.
One might compare the mult-tenant option with the TPO if Oracle is going to support one architecture
UFI-ally
Ian A. MacGregor
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
Computing Division
To offer the best IT service at the lab and be the IT provider of choice.
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> on behalf of Tim Hall <tim_at_oracle-base.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 3:48:44 AM To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
Not getting into the better/worse debate, but there is a lot of functionality associated with the multitenant architecture that I don't believe is present with MySQL and SQL Server, although I'm not the best DBA for MySQL and SQL Server, so I'm happy to be corrected. Off the top of my head:
- Hot clones (local and remote).
- Relocate (near zero-downtime).
- Refreshable PDBs.
- Proxy PDBs.
- Metadata-only clones.
- Running commands/queries across all databases.
- Application containers for holding shared applications used by all other databases. Can be centralised using proxies.
- A bunch of resource management at the PDB level.
I'm not saying you want or care about this, but hot clones are great and so much easier than RMAN duplicates. All but the last three in this list are really useful in lone-PDB also, so you don't have to pay cash to get some of the benefits.
I agree that this should be included in the existing licenses, or at the least an EE feature, rather than an extra paid for option. Several people including myself have suggested that even a small number for free, like 5 for free and pay for more, would make it lots more attractive. Despite this, I still find it very useful a lone-PDB, but a lot will depend on what you do.
This is not directed at any individual, but I hope people have spent some significant time learning this before they make judgements. As I've mentioned numerous times, I hated it and thought it was stupid when I first started looking at it. I really didn't get the point of lone-PDB either. After investing time learning it and using it in real scenarios I really like it, and when I start working on non-CDB instances it irritates me. :) Other opinions are valid. :)
Cheers
Tim...
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Aug 31 2018 - 20:58:55 CEST