Re: 30 instances on one host

Patrick Meyer wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3D10A3C5.269BAC2A_at_exesolutions.com
>
> >
> > Maybe I missed it somewhere. But would someone please clarify whether they
> > are talking about databases or instances? They are not the same thing.
> >
> > I find it very hard to believe anyone is doing some of the stuff they say
> > here unless the words are being misused.
> >
> > And I don't care how much junk people decide to consolidate ... why more
> > instances or more databases is better than more tablespaces and schemas (in
> > most situations)? This line of reasoning I don't follow.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> I apologize for not being more articulate, but unless I'm talking about
> OPS or RAC, is there a need to distinguish?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Yes. Because I have lots of servers with two or three databases and one instance. And there isn't any OPS or RAC in sight. Daniel Morgan Received on Thu Jun 20 2002 - 01:07:11 CDT