Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

Re: Multiple installed versions of Oracle

From: Carel-Jan Engel <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:20:57 +0200
Message-Id: <>

Multiple versions on a Unix system is a fact of life, as soon as you run multiple instances on a single server.

I was told recently that a bank in this country runs over 30 instances on just a couple of CPU's on IBM. I forgot whether it was 2 or 4 CPU's. Do you believe they upgrade/patch all databases in one big bang? No way, so there are different versions on a system, at least during the timeframe they're upgrading. To get a better SUR (Server Utilization Ratio) the tendency is to put more databases / versions on a server, not fewer.

Your unix-area manager should do what is job title says: manage. Now he's spreading fear because the previous shop he worked on had some bad experiences. It appears to me that was a badly managed shop. Creating a simplified environment leaves nothing to manage, even the money has gone out by then. So, effectively his approach leads to his own obsolence. This guy is managing by fear, not by knowledge. As I said here before: fear on itself is a bad advisor.
Rephrasing David Knox' statement If you don't trust your Unix managers, get new ones. (David, of course, talked about DBAs in stead of Unix managers.)

Just my $ 0.02

Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok) ===

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 16:55, Tracy Rahmlow wrote:

> We are in the process of upgrading several databases from 8i on AIX 4.3.3
> to 9 on AIX 5.2 or 10g on AIX 5.2. The target version depends upon
> whether or not the application is supported on 10g or not. If not will be
> migrating toward 9.
> The manager of the unix area has indicated that he has seen issues at his
> previous shop with co-locating multiple versions of Oracle on the same
> server and is basically not allowing the practice. I have never seen or
> heard of this issue, but am trying to remain open-minded to his concern.
> Here are his statements verbatim:
> Several occasions where server and db crashed due to dba administering db
> in an incorrect manner. IE mistook one version for the other. Applied
> the incorrect maintenance patch to the incorrect instance.
> Several occasions where db versions did not play nice together 7.3.4 and
> 8i.
> All occasions impacted SLA's and one instance required restore of db due
> to corrupt data.
> I also contacted two DBA Manager friends and they are aware Oracle
> supports this strategy, however, both shops have standards in place that
> do not permit this practice - due primarily to the above incidents and to
> keep the environments simple / less complex. Does this make the planning
> of upgrades and maintenance a little more difficult - yes, but they both
> agreed that this best practice has solved many headaches and saved many
> hours of work.
> Prior to his arrival we did have success running 7 and 8 on the same
> server. Frankly, I do not think the restriction is warranted. So what
> are your thoughts? And if you agree with me help me make a case for
> changing his mind. To complicate matters, he has more authority than me.
> Thanks
> Tracy Rahmlow

Received on Tue Apr 05 2005 - 16:24:55 CDT

Original text of this message