FAQ
My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for each
instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply
patches to all of them.

I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The 9i
DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues
with them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me
is using it.

On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) resides
on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of these
settings?

Thanks

Ana E. Choto
American University
e-Operations - Information Technology
Phone (202) 885-2275
Fax (202) 885-2224

Search Discussions

  • Mercadante, Thomas F at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:22 pm
    Ana,

    There are at least two things to consider.

    If all of your applications are home grown, then sharing one Oracle home is
    appropriate. The implication here is that when you choose to migrate to a
    new version of the database software, that all of these database can go at
    the same time.

    If your application are store-bought, then you have another thing to worry
    about. Typically, store-bought applications will declare capatability with
    the Oracle level at different times. In this case, I would think you would
    want different Oracle homes.

    In all cases, I have never heard of (nor *every* worry about) binary
    contention issues between databases. This is a new one on me. Sounds like
    an old main-framer talking!! :)

    Good Luck!

    Tom Mercadante
    Oracle Certified Professional

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a server
    sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply patches
    to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The 9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues with
    them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me is
    using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Mohammad Rafiq at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:33 pm
    If sufficient resources are available as you explained, one Oracle
    Home is fine regardless of number of instances. I never seen any
    contention in binaries. In case of upgrades when all instances can not
    be upgraded at one time due vendors restriction/certification, a
    separate Oracle Home can be justified.

    Regards
    Rafiq
    On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:13:20 -0400, Ana Choto wrote:
    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply
    patches to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The 9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues
    with them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me
    is using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco at Sep 29, 2004 at 2:26 pm
    Using Oracle 9 once I have more than 8 database in the same server pentium
    IV 512 memory (big pagefile sys).
    obviously it was for test.

    Our customer, some of them has from 2 to 5 databases in the same server
    (real server), in production,
    our system is small obviously, but not too small between 5 to 200
    simulatenous processes.

    I never saw a problem, not if in the same server you use 9i and 10g
    (different homes), no idea, but there is a posibility all will work ok.


    Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco
    OCP
  • Carel-Jan Engel at Sep 29, 2004 at 3:21 pm
    Many instances running on single server, sharing Oracle home, on many
    sites.
    I must admit I have slightly adapted OFA: My Oracle home naming is like:

    /.../oracle/product/DB_09_02_00_05_00.

    This is a recent 'development'. It's because 10g asks me to install many
    products, and I want every product to be independent from the others:
    Grid Control, agents, AS, whatever. Adding extra levels of the version
    number to the OH helps to keep them separated, even when one of the
    databases (sorry, products) gets patched, and the others will stay
    behind for a while. Once every instance/database left an Oracle Home, I
    send it to the eternal bitfields.

    However, my behaviour is subject to change, if anyone here proves
    (points) my individual interpretation of OFA wrong!

    Best regards,

    Carel-Jan Engel

    ===
    If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
    ===
    On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 20:38, Mohammad Rafiq wrote:

    If sufficient resources are available as you explained, one Oracle
    Home is fine regardless of number of instances. I never seen any
    contention in binaries. In case of upgrades when all instances can not
    be upgraded at one time due vendors restriction/certification, a
    separate Oracle Home can be justified.

    Regards
    Rafiq
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Bobak, Mark at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:36 pm
    I agree with everything Tom said.

    Additionally, though, you should consider two other points:

    1.) A single ORACLE_HOME for multiple databases means a single
    point of failure for those databases. You'll need to assess the=20
    risk there.

    2.) A single ORACLE_HOME mean all databases get patchsets and patches
    applied at the same time. It also obviously means all databases need
    to be down for the duration of the patch or patchset rollout.

    -Mark

    -----Original Message-----
    From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
    On Behalf Of Mercadante, Thomas F
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:26 PM
    To: 'achoto_at_american.edu'; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: RE: What are the implications of having several instances on a
    server sharing the oracle home?

    Ana,

    There are at least two things to consider.

    If all of your applications are home grown, then sharing one Oracle home =
    is
    appropriate. The implication here is that when you choose to migrate to =
    a
    new version of the database software, that all of these database can go =
    at
    the same time.

    If your application are store-bought, then you have another thing to =
    worry
    about. Typically, store-bought applications will declare capatability =
    with
    the Oracle level at different times. In this case, I would think you =
    would
    want different Oracle homes.

    In all cases, I have never heard of (nor *every* worry about) binary
    contention issues between databases. This is a new one on me. Sounds =
    like
    an old main-framer talking!! :)

    Good Luck!

    Tom Mercadante
    Oracle Certified Professional

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto =20
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a =
    server
    sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, =
    say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we =
    have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for =
    each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an =
    issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply =
    patches
    to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, =
    they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The =
    9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues =
    with
    them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me is
    using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) =
    resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of =
    these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Stevens, Ed at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:40 pm
    To be blunt, your boss is clueless. What kind of contention is he
    visualizing here?

    On some of our test systems, running Windows (which some would say is
    madness itself) we are running over a dozen separate databases (which many
    would say is madness itself) with one Oracle home. A couple of our prod
    servers, running Windows, are supporting up to 6 separate databases from a
    single home. While many would claim our setup is insane, it would be for
    reasons other than running multiple db's from a single Oracle Home.

    How many things run on the same computer using the same binaries from the
    OS? Is that considered contention? Let's install a separate OS for each
    app. If you have 3 separate Word documents open at once, would you want them
    to each be driven by separate installations of Word? Let's install Word into
    a separate directory for each document.

    Ask your boss to explain exactly what kind of contention (disk? memory?
    cpu?) he is concerned about, and then ask him to explain the theory behind
    releaving that contention by using multiple Oracle Homes. Gently point up
    the fallacies as they surface -- as they most certainly will. With careful
    questioning and a bit of explanation, you might get him to talk himself into
    a better understanding.

    Ed Stevens

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a
    server sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply
    patches to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The 9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues
    with them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me
    is using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Stevens, Ed at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:45 pm
    Sounds lik an old mainframer talking? Nah. I'm an old mainframer, and even
    in my mainframe days, when I thought IBM OS-360 was the only real computing,
    I never thought that way. Sounds more like a techncally illertatre manager
    who knows just enough to be dangerous.

    Ed Stevens

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mercadante, Thomas F
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:26 PM
    To: 'achoto_at_american.edu'; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: RE: What are the implications of having several instances on a
    se rver sharing the oracle home?

    Ana,

    There are at least two things to consider.

    If all of your applications are home grown, then sharing one Oracle home is
    appropriate. The implication here is that when you choose to migrate to a
    new version of the database software, that all of these database can go at
    the same time.

    If your application are store-bought, then you have another thing to worry
    about. Typically, store-bought applications will declare capatability with
    the Oracle level at different times. In this case, I would think you would
    want different Oracle homes.

    In all cases, I have never heard of (nor *every* worry about) binary
    contention issues between databases. This is a new one on me. Sounds like
    an old main-framer talking!! :)

    Good Luck!

    Tom Mercadante
    Oracle Certified Professional

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a server
    sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply patches
    to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The 9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues with
    them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me is
    using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Goulet, Dick at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:53 pm
    Multiple database instances from one Oracle Home is just fine. I can't =
    think on a single server we have that has more than one home per version =
    and their all running multiple databases. The king of the hill (Dudley, =
    a HP-9000/N4000 HP-UX) has 16 instances(peoplesoft), at last count.

    Dick Goulet
    Senior Oracle DBA
    Oracle Certified 8i DBA

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a
    server sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, =
    say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we =
    have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for =
    each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an =
    issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply
    patches to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, =
    they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The =
    9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues
    with them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but =
    me
    is using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2) =
    resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of =
    these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Jesse, Rich at Sep 29, 2004 at 1:55 pm
    Maybe not "clueless", but probably unfounded. Don't forget that there's a lot more than just binaries in an OFA $ORACLE_HOME. For example, the optional Listener log ($ORACLE_HOME/network/log/listener.log) and Oracle message files ($ORACLE_HOME/rdbms/mesg/oraus.msg). One's write, the other read and every connection causes activity in both in our environment, AFAICT.
    Does this require multiple ORACLE_HOMEs for us? Nah. From a quick peek, we're hitting about 100KB/s cached reads (peaks at 500KB/s) and <1KB/s on writes on our $ORACLE_HOME mount point. But it could for some, depending on the load and system setup.

    My $.02,
    Rich

    -----Original Message-----
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:43 PM
    Subject: RE: What are the implications of having several instances on a
    server sharing the oracle home?

    To be blunt, your boss is clueless. What kind of contention is he
    visualizing here?

    On some of our test systems, running Windows (which some would say is
    madness itself) we are running over a dozen separate databases (which many
    would say is madness itself) with one Oracle home. A couple of our prod
    servers, running Windows, are supporting up to 6 separate databases from a
    single home. While many would claim our setup is insane, it would be for
    reasons other than running multiple db's from a single Oracle Home.

    How many things run on the same computer using the same binaries from the
    OS? Is that considered contention? Let's install a separate OS for each
    app. If you have 3 separate Word documents open at once, would you want them
    to each be driven by separate installations of Word? Let's install Word into
    a separate directory for each document.

    Ask your boss to explain exactly what kind of contention (disk? memory?
    cpu?) he is concerned about, and then ask him to explain the theory behind
    releaving that contention by using multiple Oracle Homes. Gently point up
    the fallacies as they surface -- as they most certainly will. With careful
    questioning and a bit of explanation, you might get him to talk himself into
    a better understanding.

    Ed Stevens

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Wolfson Larry - lwolfs at Sep 29, 2004 at 5:48 pm
    Ana,

    You got a lot of great responses. I didn't how busy you said these
    DBs would be.

    We had a client with 36 DBs running on an HP server with one ORACLE
    home. Yes we did upgrade them all at the same time (Actually it was more
    like 6 at a time).

    These were supporting manufacturing plants of various sizes.
    Like one or two people mentioned you're most contention would be on

    the listener log. But you can run multiple listeners if that becomes an
    issue. We have one system with 4 listeners and that's only for one DB.

    We did change log file name everyday with something like:

    #!/bin/ksh
    #Written by Lawrence Wolfson xx/xx/xx
    # Set listener log name without shutting down listener.


    . XXXXXXXXXXXXXX/ENV.$SID # set all env variables
    # Below generates listener.10oct10fri and .log is appended to that.
    LOG="listener.`date '+%m%b%e%a' | tr ' ' '0'`"


    lsnrctl set log_file "$LOG"

    This makes it easy to see trends in activity despite what the
    application people tell you.

    And you should have a password on your listener if you don't already
    have one.

    Larry

    The information contained in this communication is
    confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient
    named above, and may be legally privileged.
    If the reader of this message is not the intended
    recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
    distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
    prohibited.
    If you have received this communication in error,
    please re-send this communication to the sender and
    delete the original message or any copy of it from your
    computer system. Thank You.
  • Nuno Pinto do Souto at Sep 29, 2004 at 7:57 pm

    Quoting from AUTHOR Ana Choto:

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have,
    say three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as
    we have enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the
    software for each instance to alleviate contention for the binaries.
    He thinks wrong. There is no such animal as "contention for
    the binaries" in modern operating systems, Windows included.
    Provided you stay within the requirements of OFA, you are
    always fine. But he may be right also. Read on, please.
    Space is not an issue for him. The problem with this setting is that I
    will have to apply patches to all of them.
    Yes, that is a problem. On the other hand, the problem with
    the "shared by all" approach, as others have pointed out, is
    that you cannot apply independent releases of the software to
    a given subset of your databases. That could create problems.
    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of
    these settings?
    Well, put it this way:
    I think you are right and wrong. Let me explain.
    You are absolutely right in the "contention" bit: there is
    no such thing nowadays.
    But I think you may be wrong in sharing the same executables
    with all databases. Why?

    Imagine this scenario: you receive an Oracle upgrade that will
    require some changes/testing of your apps BEFORE you send it
    to production. One copy of the binaries later, you realize
    that you have just upgraded ALL your Oracle databases to the new
    release without first testing!

    See what I mean?

    I'd stick with two copies of the software. One used for production
    databases and critical user acceptance testing (if you bother
    with that sort of thing - many do). The other used for all
    development databases.

    And you won't ever have problems with upgrades. And you'll STILL
    be sharing executables. And your boss will get the Charlie Brown
    "pee in your dark pants" syndrome. You know: gives him a warm
    feeling and no one notices.

    Win-win situation, no?;)

    --
    Cheers
    Nuno Souto
    nsouto_at_bizmail.com.au

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Stephen Evans at Sep 30, 2004 at 6:18 am
    we consolidate oracle homes where possible. this is just to save on
    space/upgrade time etc.
    we do this knowing that if need we can easily add a new home & move a sid
    to that

    btw, i dont think binaries are even loaded many times, they stay resident
    for the most part

    for us, mission critical apps always get their own box so sharing oracle
    homes for them is never an issue (ie i would not share oracle homes where
    up-time is important)

    steve

    "Mercadante, Thomas F"
    Sent by: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
    09/29/2004 02:26 PM
    Please respond to thomas.mercadante



    To: "'achoto_at_american.edu'", oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    cc:
    Subject: RE: What are the implications of having several instances on a se rver

    sharing the oracle home?

    Ana,

    There are at least two things to consider.

    If all of your applications are home grown, then sharing one Oracle home
    is
    appropriate. The implication here is that when you choose to migrate to a
    new version of the database software, that all of these database can go at
    the same time.

    If your application are store-bought, then you have another thing to worry
    about. Typically, store-bought applications will declare capatability
    with
    the Oracle level at different times. In this case, I would think you
    would
    want different Oracle homes.

    In all cases, I have never heard of (nor *every* worry about) binary
    contention issues between databases. This is a new one on me. Sounds
    like
    an old main-framer talking!! :)

    Good Luck!

    Tom Mercadante
    Oracle Certified Professional

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ana Choto
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:13 PM
    To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: What are the implications of having several instances on a server
    sharing the oracle home?

    My boss thinks that this could cause problems. I say it's OK to have, say
    three Oracle instances (or more) sharing the binaries, as long as we have
    enough memory and space. He thinks we should install the software for
    each
    instance to alleviate contention for the binaries. Space is not an issue
    for him. The problem with this setting is that I will have to apply
    patches
    to all of them.

    I have on a server four databases, three of them share the binaries, they
    are on 9iR2, and I also have a 10G instance on its own oracle home. The
    9i
    DBs are not heavily used so I can't tell if there is performance issues
    with
    them. I don't see a problem with the 10G db, although no one but me is
    using it.

    On another server I have three databases in their own oracle home. Two
    instances run on 8.1.7.4, one is the datawarehouse and the other one is
    oltp. No performance problems there. Another oltp database (9iR2)
    resides
    on the server, and I don't see any performance issues there either.

    Is someone out there willing to share his/her experiences with any of
    these
    settings?

    Thanks

    Ana E. Choto
    American University
    e-Operations - Information Technology
    Phone (202) 885-2275
    Fax (202) 885-2224

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Mercadante, Thomas F at Sep 30, 2004 at 7:09 am
    Larry,

    I too renamed the listener log file to manage it's size. That is until I
    discovered (via this list) that you can turn the listener logging off (set
    log_status off). This solved *that* problem. I now only turn it on for
    debugging.

    Tom Mercadante
    Oracle Certified Professional

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Wolfson Larry - lwolfs
    Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:28 PM
    To: 'achoto_at_american.edu'; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
    Subject: RE: What are the implications of having several instances on a se
    rver sharing the oracle home?

    Ana,

    You got a lot of great responses. I didn't how busy you said these
    DBs would be.

    We had a client with 36 DBs running on an HP server with one ORACLE
    home. Yes we did upgrade them all at the same time (Actually it was more
    like 6 at a time).

    These were supporting manufacturing plants of various sizes.
    Like one or two people mentioned you're most contention would be on

    the listener log. But you can run multiple listeners if that becomes an
    issue. We have one system with 4 listeners and that's only for one DB.

    We did change log file name everyday with something like:

    #!/bin/ksh
    #Written by Lawrence Wolfson xx/xx/xx
    # Set listener log name without shutting down listener.


    . XXXXXXXXXXXXXX/ENV.$SID # set all env variables
    # Below generates listener.10oct10fri and .log is appended to that.
    LOG="listener.`date '+%m%b%e%a' | tr ' ' '0'`"


    lsnrctl set log_file "$LOG"

    This makes it easy to see trends in activity despite what the
    application people tell you.

    And you should have a password on your listener if you don't already
    have one.

    Larry

    The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended
    only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
    privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
    are hereby notified that any dissemination,
    distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
    you have received this communication in error, please re-send this
    communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of
    it from your computer system. Thank You.

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouporacle-l @
categoriesoracle
postedSep 29, '04 at 1:10p
activeSep 30, '04 at 7:09a
posts14
users12
websiteoracle.com

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase