Re: 30 instances on one host

"Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3D10A3C5.269BAC2A_at_exesolutions.com

>
> Maybe I missed it somewhere. But would someone please clarify whether they
> are talking about databases or instances? They are not the same thing.
>
> I find it very hard to believe anyone is doing some of the stuff they say
> here unless the words are being misused.
>
> And I don't care how much junk people decide to consolidate ... why more
> instances or more databases is better than more tablespaces and schemas (in
> most situations)? This line of reasoning I don't follow.
>
> Daniel Morgan

I apologize for not being more articulate, but unless I'm talking about OPS or RAC, is there a need to distinguish?

Currently, we have a number of servers that each serve as a home for a single instance. The management plan is to dispose of these individual servers to decrease the enormous depreciation they are faced with and to minimize on-going maintenance costs. Some of the servers are rather old.

As I said, they want to move most everything to a single server. I agree that more tablespaces and schema's are better, where applicable. Unfortunately, I live in the real world that has real world restrictions. Like third party applications that dictate which database version we must use. I can't combine the databases for Vendor A and Vendor B, if Vendor A upgrades application and database versions twice as fast as Vendor B.   

For some insane reason, the application folks want to stick with Vendor certification as dictated in the support agreements. <--- Extreme sarcasm.

Patrick

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG