Re: Looking for a scalable solution for many DB links

Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.nospam.demon.nl> writes:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:22:50 +0000, Paul Moore <pf_moore_at_yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>At the moment, I'm expecting to go with (1), but I'd love to convince
>>myself that (2) would work.
>
> I would like to add two other options
>
> 3) ask yourself and your management whether they have gone nuts by
> having 100+ databases at all and one central instance collecting all
> those tables. You are bound for disaster, whichever option you
> implement. Likely all those 100+ databases have only one schema, and
> you are treating Oracle as sqlserver.

I don't think you're right on this one, but maybe I've not given enough detail... What I'm doing is effectively duplicating some of the things in OEM (collecting system stats at intervals). We can't use OEM for the same reasons as we can't "push" the data (firewalls).

OEM happily scales to monitoring over 100 databases, which is why I don't think this is an unreasonable goal.

Certainly, I'd never design an application distributed over 100 databases. But designing one application (on one database) to monitor many target databases is a different issue.

I'm not sure I follow your "treating Oracle as SQL Server" comment.

> 4) Consider using Oracle replication.

I'm not sure I see how. Unless you *are* thinking that I am talking about an application with its data spread over 100 databases (in which case replicating the data into one database is a reasonable option - not as good as centralising the data in one database, mind :-)). But I can see how you might have read my original message as implying that I was using a "design" like that.

Sorry for being unclear.
Paul.

-- 
This signature intentionally left blank