Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- From: Sybrand Bakker <postbus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:29:06 +0100
On 30 Jan 2006 19:25:38 -0800, englishguy2006@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>The alternative would be to have 25 instances running on each server
>each with buffer cache, large pool, shared pool, java pool, redo
>buffers plus each of these instances would have up to 20 oracle
>processes and there would also be 25 different database caches talking
>to each other from one blade server to another. Finally there's
>additional licensing cost plus some possible changes when moving a
>non-RAC database to RAC, 5 sets of archive/redo logs, 5 alert log files
>/ database. I think that makes for a lot of overhead which is why I'm
>thinking the non RAC idea of the virtual servers would be the way to
>go. I should also mention that high availability is important but not
>critical for these databases.
Likely they just don't know how Oracle works, and they are mistaking
schema for database.
--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- From: englishguy2006
- Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- References:
- Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- From: englishguy2006
- Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- From: Jim Kennedy
- Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- From: englishguy2006
- Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- Prev by Date: Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- Next by Date: Java to C on win32
- Previous by thread: Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- Next by thread: Re: Using RAC for 25+ small to medium sized database
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|