Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!homer!news.glorb.com!news-spur1.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps90.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: HansF <Fuzzy.Greybe...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: oinstall vs. dba UNIX Group
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Message-Id: <pan.2007.02.17.03.10.20.891823@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
References: <1171660337.169387.219450@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 22
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:10:21 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.59.230.40
X-Trace: edtnps90 1171681821 142.59.230.40 (Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:10:21 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:10:21 MST

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:12:17 -0800, Michael42 wrote:

> From your point of view, what are the pros and cons of using oinstall
> as the primary group rather than dba?

I'm thinking that this is yet another SarbOx reaction - auditable
separation of the jobs to install the software vs the daily operations. 

In the installs I;ve done, I have not seen an impact either way on the
operation.

That said, oinstall is a group that has write access to the inventory
whereas dba typically does not. 

Implication is simple - does your shop permit the general DBA to manage
patches?  If yes, then no impact ... if no, then keep 'em separate.

-- 
Hans Forbrich   (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com)   
*** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong!
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.