Re: Sorry, but...
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <14451ac6-656b-4a40-b4c1-c07fa91e3e6c_at_o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 5, 1:14 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Powe..._at_hp.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Once again: in what way shape or format, is using EM going to help reduce the number of instances/servers in the exact circumstances you enunciated above? Received on Wed Jan 04 2012 - 21:36:14 CST