if you spent 9.5 million administering systems, you are a blithering
idiot and using EM won't change a thing...
http://blogs.oracle.com/oem/entry/ce...es_9_5_million

On Jan 3, 6:38*pm, Noons <wizofo... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
You are kidding, right?!?!?!... I would have to categorically
disagree with you here... Maybe you haven't worked in a real shop
before... Having worked in "that" data center prior to them using
EM, I can say that it is a far cry from what that they did have. In a
data center with as many targets as they have, SAVING 9.5M is a BIG
deal in licensing cost and even personnel cost. They have more than
quadrupled the number of targets from when I was there 6-7 years ago.
Operations cost in a data center of that size is pretty amazing. 8000
targets with > 2000 databases takes a LOT of human resources. Back
then they had 3rd party tools that charged a lot more than they were
worth. I am not sure what is their platform of choice now (it was
OpenVMS, AIX and HPUX), but I can probably bet it ain't a single-core
windows server. Have you paid for a HPUX or AIX license recently ?
Multiplied by 8000? And the hardware maintenance costs?.. 9.5M is
just a drop in that bucket.

9.5M doesn't seem so great now does it? With savings like that, they
can employ more people (sys admin's, DBA's, operations support,
application support, power substation support) , buy more servers,
incur more licensing costs, take on more customers etc etc etc. So, I
wouldn't be so hasty in your disparaging remarks there...

I have also worked for a company that was in the top 10 corporate
customers for Oracle licensing. Believe me, data centers of this
size, you will spend much more in licensing cost than you can
imagine.

I would add that if you paid for EM or the tuning/diag pack, you are
an idiot. It is something you cannot not install and it is not
something that can be removed and it uses your resources whether or
not you "pay" for it. These tools are an integral part of the
database engine that cannot be separated. IMHO, Anything that cannot
be removed should be included in your licensing. Period.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:38:15 -0800, Noons wrote:

What strikes me as odd was this guy mentioning "2000 databases". Why
would anybody need 2000 databases?



--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:21:55 -0800, onedbguru wrote:

Again, why would anyone need that many databases? Not even fantasy
football can explain that many databases.



--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

On Jan 4, 7:18*am, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Potentially the shop could be supporting an application that is set up
using one unique database instance per end-customer. In such a set up
2000 end customers would require 2000 database instances, which is not
that unseasonable a number when you really think about it.

Also it was not that long ago that file sizes were limited to 2G and
files this size were rare. Back then many shops optioned for a
distributed database design so what you could not easily build today
in a single database would have been built in several. Carry such a
design forward and again segregate customers into separate databases
and you could easily end up with 2000 databases to support 400 end
customer accounts (with potentially hundreds of application end users
per customer account).

I would think if you license by cpu you can run as many instances as
your hardware will support.

IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

Nuno:

# if you spent 9.5 million administering systems, you are a blithering
diot and using EM won't change a thing...http://blogs.oracle.com/oem/
entry/cerner_saves_9_5_million

....

Just think how much fun they have applying the quarterly patches into
all those 2000 databases right?

After all ... they cannot just be letting those systems sit unpatched
can they?

On Jan 4, 11:13*am, John Hurley <hurleyjo... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Think of the old ASP model. Application Service Provider. This was
one of those situations where this model works very well!! Their
individual customers have their own set of hardware/database and their
data absolutely must never cross to another customers "system". And
yes... patching was/is a LOT of fun.

I was also employed at another site not too far from the one mentioned
in the video where we had 3000+ servers with 4500 database instances
(Oracle(95%) , DB2, SQLServer)... and in that case, I had said they
truly did NOT need that many...

On Jan 4, 11:37*am, onedbguru <onedbg... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Obviously some of you live in a very sheltered world.

On Jan 4, 3:21*pm, onedbguru <onedbg... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

No, I haven't. Please tell me what it is like? Because in 40 years
of IT and 25 with Oracle, I certainly have never seen any of those
"real" shops and I need you to tell me what they are like....



What the hell has saving 9.5M - unqualified - have to do with EM?
Do you know how to read English?


Unless they are a provider of db services, there is simply NO NEED
whatsoever for "8000 targets with 2000 databases". And if they are,
then 9.5M is way too low for that kind of work at that dimension.



And pray tell in what deranged univers is EM going to help reduce the
number of Aix/HPUX licences?
Unless the number of databases and nodes is reduced, which ha NOTHING
to do with EM.
Can you stay on the subject for longer than a sentence?


I stand by what I said. Unlike you, who changed tack at every
sentence.


Once again: what the heck has that got to do with EM?
Wince when has EM helped anyone REDUCE the licenssing costs?
Are you on this universe yet?


Like I said: get a clue, learn to speak and read English.
Then, and only then, comment.
<plonk>

On Jan 5, 1:14*am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Powe... (AT) hp (DOT) com> wrote:


Once again: in what way shape or format, is using EM going to help
reduce the number of instances/servers in the exact circumstances you
enunciated above?