Re: 30 instances on one host

I agree, actually (I have to... teaching Oracle classes mean I actually encounter at least 30 Instances on the one server every day). But as you say, that's a very special case, and hardly warrants what looks to be a burgeoning white paper as justification or explanation.

One knows before walking into the training room that the student databases are going to be pathetically small, and quite useless for anything even approaching production standards. My whitepaper on the subject will be about three lines long, and that's because I'm occasionally verbose!!

Regards
HJR "Sean M" <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3D0ECDA9.F4675643_at_earthlink.net...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Sean M wrote:
> >
> > > It's not entirely academic - as I said in my other post, there are
some
> > > valid justifications for such a configuration (training, support,
> > > etc.). But generally I agree - this sort of architecture is highly
> > > specialized, and almost always used for situations where
> > > performance/robustness/scalability are not the primary concern.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sean
> >
> > I disagree. I can not believe there is any justification.
> >
> > I challenge anyone to give me a rationale whereby 10 instances makes
more sense
> > than 2 or 3.
> >
> > And lets make sure here that we are using the word 'instance' to mean
'instance'
> > and not to mean 'datab ase'. You are talking about 10+ running Oracle
> > executables. 10+ oracle_sids. 10+ * the number of threads in a single
instance.
>
> Well, as I said in my other post, a training class for Oracle would be a
> good example. Each student gets his or her own database (actual
> distinct Oracle database) for exercises so as not to conflict with the
> other students in the class (or in the next classroom over, for that
> matter). Each student needs his/her own because the class is on
> backup/recovery, or How to Build an Oracle Database, etc. (any sort of
> DBA-type class where each student needs complete control over his or her
> own database for the hands-on portion). Say 20 students per class, one
> server per class, 20 instances/databases per server. That makes far
> more sense than running 10 servers with 2 databases each for every class
> in terms of cost and managability, which clearly have a higher priority
> in this example than performance, etc. That's not to say performance
> isn't a consideration - you don't want the students waiting around. But
> you also don't want to spend the unjustifiable sums required to give
> each student his own server. Hence, like everything else, a compromise
> between cost/performance/managability must be struck.
>
> Another example might be a support organization. Each telephone analyst
> might need a scratch instance to run simple tests on. You have 60
> analysts. It would not make sense to buy 60 servers to run 60 test
> instances on. You buy 2 or 3 big ones and run 20 or 30 many small
> databases on each. Again, peformance takes a back seat to managability
> and cost, but that's perfectly acceptable and sane - the correct choice
> for this particular example.
>
> But again, these are special cases. In the vast majority of situations,
> 20 or 30 databases on a single host would not be the correct, sane
> choice.
>
> Regards,
> Sean
Received on Tue Jun 18 2002 - 02:57:59 CDT