Re: Opinions on Unorthodox Server Setup

On 30 Jun 2004 18:22:44 -0700, sdanield_at_yahoo.com wrote:

>My organization has a complex legacy client/server app which we
>normally use in a mission critical environment where it generates a
>good volume of data. In this environment we of course have good
>servers for our Oracle instances, with redundant everything and hot
>and cold backups and all that good stuff.
>
>The idea has arisen to reuse this legacy application in a different
>kind of environment where the data is not as critical, but there may
>be some real benefits in its use there, provided we can keep the costs
>down for the new installation. Keeping the costs down is a major
>driver.
>
>The data in this new environment will not be as critical as it is
>elsewhere in our organization. Really, due to the low volume of data,
>small number of concurrent users (three) and non-critical nature of
>the information, Oracle is really overkill. But reuse of all our
>existing (rich-functionality) code entails keeping it on Oracle (there
>are a lot of dependencies, including lots of server-side PL/SQL).
>
>One idea to help keep the costs down is to not require a server
>machine for the Oracle instance. There will be three client
>workstations (probably XP professional) and on one of these client
>workstations we would install Oracle 9i standard edition. All three
>clients will use this database. Backups would be limited to nightly
>cold backups to a CD-ROM drive.
>
>I kind of think we're putting the cart before the horse here but I'm
>trying to stay neutral. Wanted to know if anyone more technically
>knowledgeable than me would share their opinions with me on this? What
>kinds of problems could we run into (beyond the user turning the
>workstation-server box off at 5pm and the scheduled backup not
>occuring that night)?
>
>Thanks!

If it will run on one of the user's desktops, then just buy another desktop machine that you leave up near 24x7 to host the db. I know you said cost is a driving factor, but the cost of a single meeting to discuss this ('x' meeting participants times 'y' hourly cost per participant) is probably more than the cost of the additional machine. Once again, a company will spend a buck to save a nickle. Received on Thu Jul 01 2004 - 08:54:19 CDT