RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?

RAC and a cost effective solution is an oxymoron. Add another node...

If you have'nt seen these papers, they sum it up nicely and accuratly in my opinion:
http://www.miracleas.dk/WritingsFromMogens/YouProbablyDontNeedRACUSVersion.pdf

http://www.miracleas.dk/images/upload/Docs/MS%20OracleRAC%20whitepaper.pdf

-- 
..
David



> Well RAC is not the SAN right? RAC is HA for the Oracle Instance.

>

> If you're saying the total HA solution involves eliminating all SPOFs,

> I'd agree but cost is always a limiting factor in that regard...

>

> Thanks!

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill_at_gmail.com]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:04 PM

> To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit

> Cc: Vlado Barun; oracle-l_at_freelists.org

> Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?

>

>

>

> On 6/1/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com>

> wrote:

>

>

> 	Let's say we already have Service Guard in house. For new

> 	implementations should we go with MCSG or look at RAC? RAC is an

> HA and

> 	scalability solution (MCSG is purely HA). I'm trying to get a

> good

>

>

>

> RAC might be many things, but HA is not one of them.

>

> The disk subsystem is a single point of failure: you only have one

> database.

>

> --

> Jared Still

> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

>

>

>

> --

> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

>


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l