Re: 2 databases but 1 oracle home

"Explain yourself" is rude?

I have no problems reading....just reading minds.

As for your misgivings about the environment...you're correct and I agree with you. For the most part "performance" issues between dev/test and production have not occurred..( we've been cognizant of those issues and addressed them accordingly.) I can tell you that these 65 dev/test databases don't even stress the box....and in this case are perfectly suited for what they're doing. Other dev instances reside on their own servers in an environment that very closely resembles their production environment.

> The further worry on my part is, that development/production impedence
> mismatch aside, that your production servers support anywhere near that
> level of concurrent instances. There is, for example, always the problem
> of senior management: "Well, you run it all on a single box in
> development. Why can't you do the same in production?".

Ah yes...I remember the last time a "junior MBA" asked that question.

So...it's not really a big deal in this case...cause a lot of thought has gone into what's being done there...only thing I really dislike about it is....1. running multiple listeners ( no real reason...just don't like it...it can cause a headache after a downtime ) and the fact that while I've moved all the databases from 7.3.4 through threats of non-support ( and many to 9i) I've still got some 8.0.5, 8.0.6 and 8.1.6 databases...and the non-support threat just doesn't seem to work with those groups. My goal this year is to get them all to 8.1.7...and then move them all to 9i next year. 10g? geeesh...

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:opr59x8ycg3d8uqx_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:47:28 GMT, bobray <quasimodo_at_genghis.com> wrote:
>
> > Howard, explain yourself.
>
> Well, I might, if you could try being less rude.
>
> > When you have 250+ Oracle databases, 128
> > terabytes of data in those databases...and several HP Superdomes....with
> > ridiculous amounts of RAM and CPU....why would you think 65 dev and test
> > databases on a Superdome is "criminal insanity" ? Frankly, it's not
> > remotely
> > insane. As far as I'm concerned it's an easy job. I can understand how
> > the
> > scale of the setup might scare ya'...but it's really no big deal.
> > Production lives in it's own world completely separate from dev and
> > test...and is locked down tighter than a drum.
>
> Do you have a problem reading?
>
> Quote: "So long as they're ALL dev and test I could sort of, maybe,
> possibly, understand it".
>
> But I have to ask: how realistic is the platform on which you test or
> develop, if it is as you describe? Because I would deem it criminal
> insanity to develop code on a stressed multi-instance box but yet expect
> it to perform anywhere remotely like it would do in production on a
> single-instance humungously-resourced box. Unless you are shipping system
> statistics back and forth, that is. Meaning that there's a risk of
> developing code that works brilliantly in one environment, only to have it
> perform like crud in the production environment for which it was intended.
>
> The further worry on my part is, that development/production impedence
> mismatch aside, that your production servers support anywhere near that
> level of concurrent instances. There is, for example, always the problem
> of senior management: "Well, you run it all on a single box in
> development. Why can't you do the same in production?". Which might well
> not be true for you, in which case give yourself a pat on the back. But
> the general observation still stands.
>
> HJR
> --
> -------------------------------------------
> Dizwell Informatics: http://www.dizwell.com
> -A mine of useful Oracle information-
> -Windows Laptop Rac-
> -Oracle Installations on Linux-
> ===========================================
Received on Sun Apr 11 2004 - 00:11:26 CDT