Re: Two databases on one server

G Quesnel wrote:

> Is this the wrong approach ? (looking for opinions)
> Oracle 9.2.0.6 on Solaris 64
> We currently have a 10G production database on a first server.
> We have a copy of that database on another server, used for reporting.
> The information is copied by having replication turned on for the
> tables of interest (~100).
> The update volume generates over 100 * 100Megs redo logs a day.
> (These include the replication supporting data, right?)
>
> We are changing the hardware environment for political reasons, and
> taking this opportunity to redesign the database environment.
>
> We are now going to have a much bigger/more powerfull server, but only
> one.
>
> Does it make sense to have two databases, one for OLTP and one for
> reporting on the same server?
> In the short term, it is expected that the historical + denormalization
> will cause the reporting component of the database to grow to several
> hundred Gigs of space, while the OLTP component should retain a much
> slower growth rate (maybe 10G per year).
>
> My currents thought were to keep the two DBs, but replace the
> replication process by using a logical standby.
> But now I am wondering if everything should be in one database, using
> multiple schemas and tablespaces, and resource manager ???
>
> Would this noticeably improve performance ?
> Would I loose or improve the capability to manage resources and
> performance ?
>
> Thanks for your time.
> Guy.

Makes sense is a relative term. If the server goes down you lose both. Does that make business sense? Does it match you SLA with your customers?

By making a different hardware choice you could have the same computing power on two different boxes and use DataGuard for replication. So why are you spending so much on hardware and what is it buying you?

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)