Re: ORACLE INSTANCES PER DBA

As usual, Daniel has raided a good point..in very large enterprise systems that many instances may not be unusual, but it appeared from the OP's questions that his was not that size of an organization. It was just an assumption ( I know, I know..) based on the questions his management had about the # needed - Places like AT & T probably have that analyzed down to the least possible person-hours required..    

Daniel Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:

>TurkBear wrote:
>
>> I agree with Mark, the idea of 1000 or more instances seems odd...
>> Perhaps 100 instances with 10 schemas each ,
>> or 10 instances with 100 schemas,
>> but seldom have I seem a need for 1000 instances ( what kind of hardware are you under/over using?)
>>
>> Are the needs of the various users so different that separate instances are really required ?
>>
>> Just my 2c
>>
>> Mark.Powell_at_eds.com (Mark D Powell) wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Blondin <apgm26_at_email.mot.com> wrote in message news:<3DD9C2E7.3526AA9B_at_email.mot.com>...
>> >> I am working for a company that is trying to determine how many DBA's
>> >> should we reasonably have for a large environment (1000 different
>> >> instances). There is no one answer here and different instances take
>> >> different amounts of work. I was just trying to see where we fit in the
>> >> DBA arena. We currently have a ratio of about 22 instances per DBA. We
>> >> have no idea if there is an industry norm or if we have more or less
>> >> instances per DBA. Can anyone help?
>> >
>> >Ed, it all depends on the work required and expected. I would be more
>> >interested in answering the question, do we really need 1,000
>> >instances?
>> >
>> >Just applying the upgrade scripts is a pretty time consuming task with
>> >so many databases to keep current. That is assuming they need to be
>> >kept current. You haven't really provided any useful information
>> >about what the databases are used for or how they were set up so I say
>> >it is impossible to give you a useful answer.
>> >
>> >HTH -- Mark D Powell --
>
>I may have the wrong thread here but if we are talking about AT&T, or someone like it, 1000 databases
>is perfectly reasonable and one would not want less.
>
>Consider the size of the enterprise and the varying needs for operating systems, tools, Oracle versions
>and editions, security, and the very substantial user base. To manage hundreds of thousands of objects
>in fewer databases would just be a maintenance nightmare.
>
>Now could it be 900 or 856? Probably. But there is a point of diminishing returns that can be reached
>pretty quickly.
>
>If one wishes to consolidate ... it is the apps that should be consolidated/integrated ... not the
>databases. The smaller number of databases would be a result of achieving the goal ... not the goal
>itself.
>
>Daniel Morgan
Received on Wed Nov 20 2002 - 08:45:23 CST