Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- From: Claus Scherschel <claus.scherschel@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:31:17 +0200
Ant Zucaro schrieb am 25.08.2006 15:06:
Claus,
Is this a question of how many databases to have per server, or how
many databases per engine (and what is easier with regards to
maintenance)?
Hi Ant,
thanks for time. No, it's not a question of the amount of databases (or,
say, the limitations of ASA9), it's a question of what to prefer: one
engine for each database or one engine driving many databases. Any why
to prefer - technically and, well, maybe legally. Admittingly, I can't
see any benefit in maintenance by having several databases in one
engine. Feel free to open my eyes.
Regards,
Claus.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- From: Ant Zucaro
- Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- References:
- ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- From: Claus Scherschel
- Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- From: Ant Zucaro
- ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- Prev by Date: Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- Next by Date: Re: insert output of procedure into temp table
- Previous by thread: Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- Next by thread: Re: ASA9 and multiple databases: best practise?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|