Re: 2 databases but 1 oracle home

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<opr576qdfh3d8uqx_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:45:19 GMT, Mark Bole <makbo_at_pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 Apr 2004 13:25:53 -0700, Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> yls177_at_hotmail.com (yls177) wrote in message
> >>> news:<c06e4d68.0404080649.670cf0e8_at_posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> [...]
> >>> IMO, the biggest reason for multiple databases is severely different
> >>> backup/restore requirements (which usually encompasses test or
> >>> training databases). More recent versions of Oracle lessen the need
> >>> for this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Joel, for my benefit, can you elaborate on what aspects/features of
> >> which Oracle versions mean the need for separate instances with wildly
> >> different backup/recovery requirements is lessened?
> >>
> >> I was trying to think of some, and couldn't come up with anything
> >> plausible, except maybe block media recovery.
> >>
> >> What did you have in mind?
> >> Regards
> >> HJR
> >
> > [Speaking for myself], the issue is not "Oracle versions", it's the
> > ability to backup and restore, just as Joel stated ("test or
> > training databases").
> >
> > Or, let me try to re-state the issues:
> >
> > * multiple ORACLE_HOME's on a given server (for different versions of
> > Oracle binaries)
> >
> > * multiple databases on a given server (for any number of business
> > reasons)
> >
> > The two issues are mostly independent -- and using OFA is one easy way
> > to make it so. (Of course, each database needs to be at the same patch
> > level as the ORACLE_HOME that instantiates it).
> >
> > Let's say I have one database in archivelog mode and another in
> > noarchivelog mode, both on the same physical server. Clearly the backup
> > strategy for each of these databases will be different (and yes, there
> > are business reasons why each database has a different backup strategy).
> >
> > Or let's say I have two completely different applications, one of which
> > is vendor-supplied and requires an obsolete version of Oracle, and the
> > other of which is in-house and requires a more main-line version.
> >
> > The nice thing is, Oracle supports all these scenarios and others quite
> > well.
> >
>
> Good reply, Mark... but I thought Joel had something rather more specific
> in mind.
>
> Obviously, support for multiple homes is important, but that was there...
> when? Version 8.0??

Yes, I was referring to being able to back up tablespaces independently, as well as some other things. My immediate thought was what was subsequently posted, which is that it sounded like some huge place with a bunch of computers that have been around a long time. That situation inevitably has incongruities coming from previous upgrades as well as less resources being given to breaking things that are working. For example, where something being developed now would be done with transportable TS's instead of classic exp/ftp/imp. These days, you may even not immediately think of exp as a backup. :-)

So I think a place as OP described as a fount of opportunity rather than something to run from or denigrate. Business decisions that seem stupid from a pure technical standpoint may be perfectly realistic. If the technical standpoint is being incorrectly ignored, it may indeed force the business decision to change.

OTOH, some places are just simply too FUBAR. Others need someone like you or Daniel to come in and tell them what to do. Better than salespeople, eh?

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.  This company brought in previously successful
change agents for their business a couple of years ago:  
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040410/news_1b10gateway.html