Re: Sorry, but...
From: onedbguru <onedbguru_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e93f727d-821b-437b-9748-ccbe98bac9d0_at_u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 4, 11:13 am, John Hurley <hurleyjo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nuno:
>
> # if you spent 9.5 million administering systems, you are a blithering
> diot and using EM won't change a thing...http://blogs.oracle.com/oem/
> entry/cerner_saves_9_5_million
>
> ...
>
> Just think how much fun they have applying the quarterly patches into
> all those 2000 databases right?
>
> After all ... they cannot just be letting those systems sit unpatched
> can they?
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e93f727d-821b-437b-9748-ccbe98bac9d0_at_u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 4, 11:13 am, John Hurley <hurleyjo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nuno:
>
> # if you spent 9.5 million administering systems, you are a blithering
> diot and using EM won't change a thing...http://blogs.oracle.com/oem/
> entry/cerner_saves_9_5_million
>
> ...
>
> Just think how much fun they have applying the quarterly patches into
> all those 2000 databases right?
>
> After all ... they cannot just be letting those systems sit unpatched
> can they?
Think of the old ASP model. Application Service Provider. This was one of those situations where this model works very well!! Their individual customers have their own set of hardware/database and their data absolutely must never cross to another customers "system". And yes... patching was/is a LOT of fun.
I was also employed at another site not too far from the one mentioned in the video where we had 3000+ servers with 4500 database instances (Oracle(95%) , DB2, SQLServer)... and in that case, I had said they truly did NOT need that many... Received on Wed Jan 04 2012 - 10:37:52 CST