Its interesting to me what you guys are attempting -we're setting up a large DWH as
well and use a similar technology BC copy to backup the dbs etc .
In the process you outlined - I do question the need for two copies of the DWH - a dbs
for writing ETL's to and another for read-only .Why do
Forgive me for asking, but if you have enough CPU for all why do you need
control?
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:03 AM
Thats what we are planning on doing here with our data
Thanks for the response, Don. RichG. also wondered why 2 instances.
I should have included the fact these will be running on 2 different
platforms as well. Apologies for the omission. Actually, I didn't include
that fact because the hardware is still under discussion; we're talking
to Sun about
Hello,
BACKGROUND:
We've been planning a 300GB datawarehouse architecture for Oracle 9.2 on
Solaris, and have proposed the following:
1) 2 separate instances of Oracle 9.2,
- Instance A will be the staging instance, all ETL processing will
take place here
- Instance B will be the
Why seperate instances? Why not seperate schemas in the same instance?
-Original Message-
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:49 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hello,
BACKGROUND:
We've been planning a 300GB datawarehouse architecture for Oracle
Rich - Good point! I haven't used Oracle Resource Manager, but in theory it
should be able to do a better job of implementing priorities than the
operating system can.
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:54 PM
To:
Thats what we are planning on doing here with our data warehouse.
Unfortunately, your CPU's have to be at 100% for resource manager
to become effective. I'd like to be able to have a bit more control
over sessions than that.
RF
Robert G. Freeman - Oracle OCP
Oracle Database Architect
CSX
