hmmm wrong thread i think
"Anton Buijs" <aammbuijs_at_xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3e15e1cb$0$49111$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> These are a few of my considerations
>
> Don't store applications in one database that don't have anything in
common:
> a. when upgrading both applications must upgrade at the same time
> b. maintenance for one application (where you really want to close access
to
> the db completely) could imply unnecessary downtime for the other
> application
> c. when the database needs to be restored completely (because one
> application screwed up the data in a yearly batch or so or block
corruptions
> occur and the db runs in noarchivelog mode) the other applications loose
> data too.
> Not that these circumstances occur a lot but...
>
> Store applications in one database when they share data (replication,
> database links) or are closely related in a way.
> a. makes recovery scenarios easier. If in multiple db's an incomplete
> recovery of one of them implies a restore of other db's too to keep the
data
> consistent between applications.
> b. can only be done when all object names in the applications are unique
> (or: this is a chance to make one copy of that table that both
applications
> share).
> c. be sure the have solid authorisation setup and procedures in place to
> prevent unwanted access to data of other applications in the db.
>
> John Hunter <jthunter_at_nbnet.nospam.nb.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
> qufR9.3254$Hs3.402088_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> | Hi Gang,
> |
> | I'm looking at submitting a business case to management that will
justify
> | changing from our current structure of many oracle databases to one big
> | database. We currently run many separate databases (financial, sales,
> | purchases etc...) all based on functional areas. These are all inhouse
> | written systems. My problem with having all these instances is with
> trying
> | to link data together. We need to have realtime data shared amonst the
> | systems. Dblinks are quite slow and although materialized views have
lots
> | to offer they consume a fair amount of overhead.
> |
> | Anyway, I've done some web searches looking for the pros and cons of
many
> | instances vs. one instance and have yet to find a good whitepaper on
this
> | subject. I did read through the long (70 or so posts) when someone said
> they
> | were going to install 50 instances on one host, but it didn't really
> answer
> | the question.
> |
> | Thanks,
> | -John
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
Received on Fri Jan 03 2003 - 16:12:09 CST
