"Sean M" <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D0F452A.34C492A7_at_earthlink.net...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> >
> > "Sean M" <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D0ECDA9.F4675643_at_earthlink.net...
> > > 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.
> >
> > I rather suspect that the 'correct' choice is to equip the support
analysts
> > with a decent intel machine running win2k as their workstation and
install
> > Oracle on each workstation.
>
> That doesn't help if they're supporting anything other than Win2k. It
> also doesn't help much if they need to trash and rebuild all 60
> databases overnight with a new set of data, a new release of the
> database, a new version of the application, a new release of the OS,
> etc. Again, managability has the higher priority than performance, and
> that's perfectly OK.
I'm still not convinced - though I can see that it is arguable -especially
if you have multiple OS/oracle version support. On the other hand many
support orgs may be able to ignore the os and hand os issues over to os
support.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
Received on Tue Jun 18 2002 - 13:52:50 CDT
