Re: Multiple instance question

Yep, that's a valid approach to take. I have seen some super-sensitive DBA's want to have the systems on different disks in case of disk crash, but that's a bit extreme IMHO.

Pete

s wrote:

> I see what you are saying.
> Basically it looks like we'll have about 12 different file system mount points to do it
> the way this DBA wants to do it, because instead of having $ORACLE_HOME's set up like
> the following:
>
> /apps/disk01/apps/oracle/product/8.0.5 and then installing version 2 (say it's
> 7.3.4) under
> /apps/disk01/apps/oracle/product/7.3.4
>
> they want to install it as
>
> /apps/disk01/apps/oracle/product/8.0.5
> /opt/disk01/apps/oracle/product/7.3.4
>
> Then we'll have to separate out the datafiles based on either /apps or /opt
> instead of just adding a subdirectory for the particular SID.
> Maybe other sites do it this way?
>
> Pete Sharman wrote:
>
> > The only time I've seen a valid reason to take this approach is when the two
> > databases are used for two separate packaged applications that may have different
> > support requirements. For example (a stupid one, but you'll see the point) if
> > PeopleSoft was used on one database and it was supported for 7.3 only and SAP was
> > used with another database and it was supported with 8.0 only. Otherwise, Sybrand's
> > response is perfectly reasonable.
> >
> > HTH.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > s wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the reply....it's what I feel too, but wanted to make sure this
> > > wasn't a standard practice that I am not aware of , and had never heard of :-).
> > > We actually have 50 9 gig drives, but I was just trying to brief. When saying
> > > striping two disks I mean having RAID 1+0 set up, and striping two disks for the
> > > stripe set, and having those mirrored. (again, makes no sense to me)
> > > I prefer to follow OFA guidelines, but it's hard to convince others sometimes
> > > (such as using separate disks for the redo logs and rollback segments).
> > >
> > > Thanks again
> > > Happy dba'ing ;-)
> > >
> > > Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> > >
> > > > There should be NO need to install Oracle multiple times, especially if this
> > > > is the same version.
> > > > You should rather follow OFA and make sure the datafiles of both databases
> > > > are spread amongst those two drives, if that's at all possible, because your
> > > > post looks like you have 2 disks in total, to hold both the OS and Oracle
> > > > and datafiles.
> > > > Following OFA you could make a layout like this
> > > > /u02/oradata/inst1 on disk1
> > > > /u03/oradata/inst1 on disk2
> > > > /u02/oradata/inst2 on disk1
> > > > and so on, as long as the inst1 and inst2 directories in each tree are mount
> > > > points and thus separate filesystems.
> > > > Following OFA you would also get two distinct administrative directories
> > > > /u01/app/oracle/admin/inst1
> > > > /u01/app/oracle/admin/inst2
> > > > and no need to have multiple Oracle installs.
> > > >
> > > > Hth,
> > > >
> > > > Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
> > > >
> > > > s <ks_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:37950C93.D6764F93_at_yahoo.com...
> > > > > We are getting ready to migrate two databases to a new Sun Box with a
> > > > > separate disk array. Both will be using Oracle 8.0.5.
> > > > > Our DBA wants to have separate software installations for each database
> > > > > with separate filesystems built and mounted separately for the
> > > > > executables and datafiles.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, one installation would be built as /disk1/oracleinstall1/../../..
> > > > > and have all the software go under this filesystem mount
> > > > > and the second would go under /disk2/oracleinstall2 /../../..and the
> > > > > software for this database would then go under this filesystem mount.
> > > > > Then each instance would be started from these two separate Oracle
> > > > > Home's
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, each database would have separate disks assigned separately for
> > > > > their particular datafiles.
> > > > > By going this route, we would only be allowed to stripe 2 disks, and
> > > > > then mirror them (RAID 1+0)
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone else seen this approach taken before?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Pete

--
Regards

Pete

Received on Wed Jul 21 1999 - 15:29:53 CDT