| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Are 5 Ora 7.3.3 Instances on 1 NT Box a good practice ?
Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> I agree that you may want to have two databases in house, one for OLTP
> and one for DSS. Also, you could run these on the same machine to cut
> down on equipment costs. All though, would you really save that much in
> efficiency by taking the time to optimize one database for OLTP and one
> for DSS and then run them both on the same machine?!?
>
> Also, I believe it is possible to create one database that has both OLTP
> and DSS components. As long as the OLTP and DSS parts of the database
> don't interact, there should not be a contention for resources. Add a
> few more processors and another disk controller in there, and you
> defiantly don't have a problem.
>
> To shed some light onto why someone might have 5 instances running on
> one machine: [true story, and for the record, I was not involved]
>
> Company X writes a client with a SQLServer back end. All the SQL in the
> client refers to tables directly, without reference to a schema (because
> that is how SQLServer is setup). Company X decides to run their client
> on oracle now and the only way to get it to work [they think] is to use
> public synonyms. So, each time they sell their service, it requires
> installing another database instance because you can't have two public
> synonyms with the same name.
>
> All they needed to do was add
>
> ALTER SESSION SET CURRENT_SCHEMA= some configurable parameter
>
> at the begging of their code. But, because Company X didn't hire any
> Oracle people, just passed the responsibility to the most database savvy
> programmer...
>
> -- Paul
>
> spencer wrote:
>
> > I can think of a scenario in which you might want to run more
> > than one instance of Oracle on a single machine. You might want
> > to use one instance for 7x24 OLTP, and use the other instance as
> > a "read only" data warehouse.
> >
> > By running two instances (two databases), you could administer
> > each one independently. For example, using ARCHIVELOG mode for
> > the active 7x24 online transaction database (where you don't
> > want to lose any data) and NOARCHIVELOG mode for the "warehouse"
> > database that is only loaded (updated) in batch.
> >
> > But running 5 nearly identical database instances on one small
> > NT machine? I'm racking my brain, but I can't fathom the
> > business goals, issues, constraints or requirements which led to
> > that solution. I'm intrigued ! Availability? Security?
> > Performance? Maybe someone else has an idea why you would need
> > to run 5 instances on a single NT machine.
Similar story - an insurance product that shall remain nameless hardcodes the schema name in ALL code - thus if you want to have several test environments then you need a database instance for each...34 (test, dev, migration, demo) databases to date on the one box...
Always make me smile...
--
"Some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue." Received on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 04:15:18 CST
 |
 |