Re: Maximum number of Oracle instances on Windows

A number of my customers run Windows and run database environments similar to what you are proposing without a problem. Chris's point about patching is a good one. Make sure the Windows admins and the DBAs have a good relationship so you don't have 16 crash consistent DBs every time they role out a Windows security update.

Having sufficient hardware resources is no different for Windows than for Linux. Do the proper planning for your environment with the understanding that the overhead of a Windows environment is different than that of *nix.

The biggest obstacle in my opinion is the learning curve for DBAs that are very well versed in managing Oracle in *nix but not so much in Windows.

• Get to know the directory structure and understand the differences (i.e. database vs dbs directory).
• If they are planning on using ASM, the raw device management is much different in Windows but the responsibility still often falls on the DBA.
• Understand services and how oradim works.
• Know where to look for and how to manipulate Oracle database information in the registry.
• Finally, understand the subtle differences when managing DBs in the Windows vs *nix command line.

Seth Miller

On Friday, September 19, 2014, Chris Taylor < christopherdtaylor1994_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> First, I'm a big fan of both Windows and Linux servers. There are things
> to like/dislike about both.
>
> The memory shouldn't be a problem. How many intensive operations/sessions
> will be running concurrently will be the bigger issue (applicable to either
> windows or unix).
>
> You'll really need to think about job processing - batch cycles that kind
> of thing where many processes are running concurrently on the server
> because you'll need a system with CPU capacity to handle the amount of
> concurrent processing you might require.
>
> The other thing (perhaps the biggest thing) is to think about Windows
> patching. It is much more necessary to patch the Windows OS because of
> security concerns. This is going to require regular downtime per month if
> you want to patch monthly. That's often the biggest issue for a lot of
> companies when deciding between the two.
>
> As far as the OS kernel itself, I'm not sure if either is more efficient
> at the machine code level at managing memory and context switching. Linux
> gives you more control (or influence) in tweaking the system but also with
> that capability comes the risk of mis-tuning the system and causing
> problems.
>
> Don't know if any of that helps or not but some food for thought I hope.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Schauss, Peter (ESS) <
> peter.schauss_at_ngc.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peter.schauss_at_ngc.com');>> wrote:
>
>> One of the sites that I support has asked me to spec out new production
>> and dev/qa database servers. They are currently running Windows. On the
>> production server they expect to have 15 or 16 small Oracle instances with
>> a total SGA+PGA of 35 gb. About half of their instances are at 11.1 but
>> they well be eventually upgrading all of them to 11.2. If we go with
>> Windows for the new servers we will be running Windows Server 2008r2 64 bit.
>>
>> I would, obviously like to move them to Linux, but I expect that they
>> will resist the idea. Are we going to run into any absolute or practical
>> limits running 15 or 16 Oracle instances with 35 gb of memory on a Windows
>> server?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Peter Schauss
>> --
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>>
>>
>>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l