Re: "Correct" term for a 1:1 relationship between a "database" and an "instance" where > 1 such things are on the same physical server?

From: Shakespeare <>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:04:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4a6ae6d6$0$187$>

joel garry schreef:
> On Jul 24, 12:58 pm, Mark D Powell <> wrote:

>> On Jul 22, 10:29 am, ddf <> wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 8:37 am, dana <> wrote:
>>>> Here's another question for you:
>>>> 1) Would there ever be any practical reason for two instances (procs +
>>>> SGA) to access the same database (collection of data treated as a
>>>> unit) on the same, unpartitioned physical server?
>>>> Dana
>>>> Dana
>>> That, I believe, is the basic definition of RAC -- two or more
>>> instances accessing a single database.
>>> David Fitzjarrell
>> But with RAC you would expect each instance to be running concurrently
>> on different servers. While some Oracle 'experts' have managed to
>> create a RAC setup with multiple instances on a single server the set
>> up is non-standard, unsupported, and for demonstartion purposes only.
>> On a UNIX platform it used to be fairly easy to change the instance
>> idenifier, SID, that was used to identify a running Oracle instance
>> used to access a database. That is you could shut the instance down,
>> make a few quick changes, and start a differently named instance then
>> access the same database you were just working with from a different
>> instance name. Only one instance can access a non-RAC database at a
>> time. There was little practical application for this functionality.
>> HTH -- Mark D Powell --
> Wasn't there something about oltp tuning during the day, then batch/
> report at night?  Something is poking at the back of my brain, maybe
> it wasn't oracle.
> jg
> --
> is bogus

Taken to the letter, a database on (backup) tape or other media is still a database, but not an instance.


(What's in a name?) Received on Sat Jul 25 2009 - 06:04:56 CDT

Original text of this message