Re: More than one database on a system? Was: need advice on filesystem layout

On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Mike McCurdy wrote:
> > > there any reason to use multiple databases instead of one?
> >
> > Different backup frequencies. Ability to restore and recover one
> > application seperate and distinct from the others. Ability to move one
> > application to another box when the sum becomes to big for a single box.
> >
> > Flexibility -- the art of being flexible.
>
> Aren't all of these capabilities possible with running one database but
> segregating applications to their own tablespaces? Maybe not with cold
> backups but the other capabilities - restore and recover, move to another
> box, should all be possible/not too complex with the one database scheme,
> or no?

It is possible to recover a portion of the database (as at the tablespace level), but certain failures will affect the entire database. With seperate instances on seperate spindles the interactions are minimized further.

The "move to another box" should have included SPLITTING the applications to seperate boxes. Much easier to do when each is it's own database rather than just seperate tablespaces. The most flexible way is with seperate databases. It may actually reduce the administrative overhead.

+----------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Butler          Voice:  206-464-2998         |
| The Seattle Times       Fax:  206-382-8898         |
| PO Box 70          Internet:  sbut-is_at_seatimes.com |
| Seattle, WA 98111    Packet:  KG7JE_at_N6EQZ.WA       |
+----------------------------------------------------+