Re: Databases in a server box

"Sean M" <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3CD1827E.5A7548B2_at_earthlink.net...
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> >
> > There is NO reason why multiple applications can't reside in one
> > single database. Security won't be compromised if you do so. Multiple
> > applications of *one single customer* should go into *one database*
> > especially when it is quite likely redundant data is going to be
> > maintained in multiple databases. This will increase maintenance
> > cost.
>
> Come now Sybrand, there are plenty of good reasons to run different
> applications in different databases. Different apps can have vastly
> different user loads, uptime requirements, backup requirements, testing
> requirements, disk requirements, cpu/memory requirements, networking
> requirements, etc. Multiple databases for heterogenous apps can be
> perfectly reasonable. Same goes with multiple instances on the same
> host - there are plenty of good reasons to do this (and other good
> reasons why you shouldn't, but it totally depends on the particular
> needs of the company).
>
> Regards,
> Sean

In my job I always see the opposite: Oracle databases being used as if they were sqlserver apps. One application, one schema, the instance is doing *absolutely nothing* and the server is suffocating. Or how about 6 different Oracle Financials instances (including several application servers) on one single *entry level* HP-UX server? Or how about 6 different databases with serveral application servers and Netscape server on a 16-cpu Solaris E6500? The databases are vastly overallocated, they absolutely do *zilch* and our monitors complain the server is memory-bound (there is 16!G of RAM in that system) and CPU-bound!
Do you still think you should locate about every different app in a different database?
Come on!

Regards

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

to reply remove '-verwijderdit' from my e-mail address