Re: 30 instances on one host

Sean M wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >
> > I agree. But you are changing terminology in midstream to make your point. You are
> > talking databases. The original question related to instances. They are not the same
> > thing.
>
> OK, fine, Daniel you're absolutely correct. A database is not an
> instance. However, just about every DBA I know uses the terms
> interchangably when OPS/RAC is not in the picture. It's lazy maybe, but
> that's the way it is. If I got sloppy and started using the words
> interchangably, I apologize. However, my argument stands as is, with
> the word "instance" anywhere I happened to use the word "database"
> lazily. I did not "change terminology in midstream to make my point."
> If I changed terminology, it was just sloppiness. My point stands.
>
> > And I specifically in my posting that you responded to made a point of
> > differentiating in case there was a misuse of terminology.
> >
> > 10+ databases I can understand. 10+ instances? No but I'm open to persuasion if
> > someone can make a good case.
>
> 20+ instances, corresponding to 20+ databases, on a single host in an
> education/support/testing/development environment *can* be justifiable
> and sound, under the right circumstances. Please use the example of a
> training class provided above and let me know why you have trouble with
> the idea.
>
> Regards,
> Sean M

I wasn' t trying to be critical but it seemed like some people in the thread really meant instances, some meant database, and some were mixing their wording to the point that I couldn't figure out what was intended.

Thanks.

Daniel Morgan Received on Thu Jun 20 2002 - 11:30:10 CDT