Re: Sorry, but...
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5432f7ab-809b-442a-958d-1fe4a18484ae_at_p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 4, 7:18 am, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:21:55 -0800, onedbguru wrote:
> > SAVING 9.5M is a BIG
> > deal in licensing cost and even personnel cost. They have more than
> > quadrupled the number of targets from when I was there 6-7 years ago.
> > Operations cost in a data center of that size is pretty amazing. 8000
> > targets with > 2000 database
>
> Again, why would anyone need that many databases? Not even fantasy
> football can explain that many databases.
>
> --http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Potentially the shop could be supporting an application that is set up using one unique database instance per end-customer. In such a set up 2000 end customers would require 2000 database instances, which is not that unseasonable a number when you really think about it.
Also it was not that long ago that file sizes were limited to 2G and files this size were rare. Back then many shops optioned for a distributed database design so what you could not easily build today in a single database would have been built in several. Carry such a design forward and again segregate customers into separate databases and you could easily end up with 2000 databases to support 400 end customer accounts (with potentially hundreds of application end users per customer account).
I would think if you license by cpu you can run as many instances as your hardware will support.
IMHO -- Mark D Powell -- Received on Wed Jan 04 2012 - 08:14:25 CST