Re: Shared pool Memory question.

damorgan wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting to hear a "good" reason to put more than one instance on a
> single server. I do not consider management pinching pennies to be a good reason.

Well, everything eventually comes down to $$$, doesn't it? Total Cost of Ownership, as Oracle is fond of saying? ROI? Can you justify the expense for the gain? I don't just mean the price of a single piece of hardware, but what it's costs the business to run one way vs. the other - man hours, maintenance, support costs, etc. Think of how much a new server *really* costs. How much does datacenter space cost per square foot? (Hint: it isn't cheap.) How much do you spend on networking per box? But anyway, here are some concrete examples of "good" reasons not to spend money on one server per instance:

• you're teaching a class and want each student to have his/her own instance, but they needn't be powerful or robust. Should all 20 students have their own box? What if you're teaching dozens of classes? Could you really make money teaching a class with that sort capital outlay for hardware, support, facilities, software licences, and administration? Not penny-pinching, just smart business practices.
• you need a place to test upgrades/patches/etc. for multiple databases.
• you need a place to run multiple reporting instances. Should they each have their own machine? Is that really cost effective in the long run?
• you're using a box to run a two standby instances from two different production sources and are willing to accept the risk of needing to failover to both at the same time

Like I said, It Depends.

> Especially not when you can go to eBay and pick up Solaris and HP servers for
> less than management usually pays for a week's worth of latte's.

;)  

> They can spend thousands of dollars in payroll cleaning up messes. But try to
> purchase a depreciable asset and they clutch for their budgets.

Depends on the company I suppose.

Regards,
Sean Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 12:22:59 CST