Grid Control Architecture for Very Large Sites: New Article published

Question

A new article on Grid Control was published recently:
Grid Control Architecture for Very Large Sites
http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/havewala-gridcontrol.html

Answer 1

Oliver,
Thanks for the comments. The article is based on practical experience. If one was to recommend a pool of 2 management servers for a large corporate with 1000 servers, what that would mean is that if 1 server was brought down for any maintenance reason (for eg. applying an EM patch), all the EM work load would be on the remaining management server. So it is better to have 3 management servers instead of 2 when the EM system is servicing so many targets. Otherwise, the DBAs would be a tad angry since only 1 remaining managment server would not be able to service them properly during the time of the maintainance fix on the first management server.
The article ends with these words: "You can easily manage hundreds or even *thousands* of targets with such an architecture. The large corporate which had deployed this project scaled easily up to managing 600 to 700 targets with a pool of just three management servers, and the future plan is to manage *2,000 or more* targets which is quite achievable." The 2000 or more is based on the same architecture of 3 managment servers.
So as per the best practice document, 2 management servers would be fine for 1000 servers, although I would still advise 3 servers in practice.
For your case of 200 servers, it depends on the level of monitoring you are planning to do, and the type of database managment activities that
will be done by the DBAs. For eg, if the Dbas are planning on creating standby databases now and then through Grid Control, running backups daily
via Grid Control, cloning databases in Grid Control, patching databases in Grid Control and so on, I would definitely advise a pool of 2 servers
in your case. 2 is always better than 1.
Regards,
Porus.
Edited by: Porushh on Feb 21, 2009 12:51 AM