Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux

niall,
agreed with the single database bit. We still plan on having a stand-by that can provide us with zero data loss (but definitely not HA).

it is interesting that you perceive RAC as not addressing HA (but only scalability). and of course the db is a single point of failure in a RAC config (unless you mitigate that with some kind of SAN based continuous copy with auto failover to that too).

so do folks generally consider (not withstanding the db as a single point of failure) that RAC is NOT considered high availability? I think i'm inclined to agree with Niall's viewpoint if we cannot do rolling upgrades within the cluster. From memory, oracle RAC can only withstand rolling upgrades if the patch is designated as such (and patchsets are NOT).

does anyone know if future versions of oracle RAC will support rolling upgrades/patchsets?

hope i'm not rambling too much.

steve

Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> 09/13/2004 10:27 AM
Please respond to Niall Litchfield  

        To:     evans036_at_mc.duke.edu
        cc:     oracle-l_at_freelists.org
        Subject:        Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux

Comments inline
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:11:41 -0400, Stephen Evans <evans036_at_mc.duke.edu> wrote:
> i hope i addressed this right - its my first post.

looks like it!

> i am looking at RAC to provide an HA environment on Linux (most likely
> Redhat AS3)

I think I'd view RAC as a scalability solution for Oracle rather than an HA solution. You still only have the one database with RAC, what happens if that DB suffers a failure?

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com




--
To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org&subject=unsubscribe 
To search the archives - http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/