| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: [new info] Redhat Advanced Server Dev Edition - RAC
Jared, point well taken. One SAN goes and we lose access to 7 DBs.
However, the paranoia between me and my Team Lead will certainly opt for
dual network path, dual power (to go with our current UPS and Ford V8
generator), and some mix of RAIDs 0 and 1. I'm thinking that this will get
us to the Point of Diminishing Returns -- we'd have to shpend a shipload
more dough to get a higher percentage uptime. And it's not that important
for a manufacturing/engineering shop to be 24x7x365. Important, but just
not paramount.
Thx for the feedback!
Rich
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator rich.jesse_at_qtiworld.com Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:20 PM
To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
Cc: Jesse, Rich; Ethan.Post_at_ps.net
Importance: High
And don't forget, RAC ( or a cluster ) will be of little benefit if the SAN fails. ( it happens )
Jared
"Post, Ethan" <Ethan.Post_at_ps.net>
Sent by: root_at_fatcity.com
02/13/2003 09:14 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: [new info] Redhat Advanced Server Dev Edition -
RAC
If you asked me last week I might not have formulated much of an opinion,
but I have been tainted by Mogens presentation on RAC or Not To RAC.
Here are some questions you need to ask...
Why not go with a box capable of the CPU's you will eventually need. Why add machines when adding CPU's might be just fine. Will these apps really not run on 64 CPU's?
The added complexity of RAC and administration needs to be a factor in calculating your target uptime? My experience has been that most database downtime is a result of the following items.
RAC doesn't fix any of these things. However, a stand-by running a few hours behind could provide feasible solutions to most of these items.
Just recently I saw a HACMP cluster (not RAC) come down causing a 1 hour
outage as a result of the instructions provided directly from an IBM
support
rep to the Unix admin. The complexity of HA was the issue, so point #1
only
becomes more likely as you add the complexity of running RAC to your
environment.
If you could chart all this stuff I got to feel that at some point the likelihood of one of issues above surpasses the likelihood of an actual hardware failure causing an outage.
I think another point made during the presentation is that some very
unique
and hard to pinpoint errors can arise from running RAC. Don't be
surprised
if the answer back from Oracle is very vague (i.e. perhaps parameter X is
set to high when circumstance Y happens...
My 2 cents...
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:40 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
With all this discussion on "Why RAC?", I thought I'd chime in with our reasoning, at least as it stands before any testing.
We currently have a few "major" databases for our ERP/MRP system, Engineering drawings, and "legacy" (I loathe that word) data. These databases are spread across three larger systems: Solaris, HP/UX, and OpenVMS. They are set up as any three independant systems with their own disks, own CPUs, own memory, etc. These relatively expensive systems are under utilized, and finally, are beginning to show their age (up to six years old).
By combining these systems under a single system, we will be saving money
in
hardware cost (future upgrades and repair) as well as in service
contracts,
not to mention the utimate savings -- computer room floorspace! What I
don't want to do is have the consolidation negatively affect the DBs in
performance or downtime (perceived or real). So, the idea right now is to
use "commodity" (read: "inexpensive") servers, dual Intel (AMD???) 1Us,
with
a SAN, and 9iRAC.
The theory being that while we'll take an initial kick in the fiscal
crotch
with the Oracle licensing, since we currently refuse to let go of our
Concurrent User, we'll come out ahead in the long run with the added
performance and unlimited user (per CPU) licensing. Also, with the
commodity servers, we can switch out the server for faster CPUs without
incurring more licensing cost should the need arise (yes, Cary, I'm well
aware of the "CPU Upgrade Myth"!).
With our testing, I hope to see that we'll be able to provide better
uptime
and performance with RAC than the total sum of the current boxes (save for
the uptime on the OpenVMS box, which has 10 minutes of total downtime in
the
past 770+ days).
Any comments on this? In the interest of bandwidth and brevity, I've been way too brief here. This should really be discussed over Guinness.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Jesse, Rich
INET: Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services ---------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Thu Feb 13 2003 - 12:59:24 CST
 |
 |