Re: 30 instances on one host

"Patrick Meyer" <buckeye234_at_excite.com> wrote in message
> Currently, we have a number of servers that each serve as a home for a
> single instance. The management plan is to dispose of these individual
> servers to decrease the enormous depreciation they are faced with and
> to minimize on-going maintenance costs. Some of the servers are rather
> old.

This doesn't seem unreasonable - so long as they accept that you replace 10 4 processor boxes with a 40 processor box if needed.

>
> As I said, they want to move most everything to a single server. I
> agree that more tablespaces and schema's are better, where applicable.
> Unfortunately, I live in the real world that has real world
> restrictions. Like third party applications that dictate which database
> version we must use. I can't combine the databases for Vendor A and
> Vendor B, if Vendor A upgrades application and database versions twice
> as fast as Vendor B.
>
> For some insane reason, the application folks want to stick with Vendor
> certification as dictated in the support agreements. <--- Extreme
> sarcasm.

I too need to have 'supported versions'. On Unix you can have multiple Oracle homes for all (reasonably) supported versions of Oracle (by vendors not oracle). That is 7.3.4.4, 8.0.6.x, 8.1.7.3 - and even 9i (hah!). If vendor A issues an upgrade requiring a later oracle version then export/import ought to be your friend. That gives by my reckoning a max of 2 boxes (test and live) with 4 oracle homes and x processors each. each app lives in its own schema with its own tablespaces. or am I just hopelessly idealistic?

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK