Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?

HA for the Oracle Instance?
You're kidding, right?

If you have SPOF, it isn't HA.

A non-dedundant disk system is a rather glaring SPOF.

On 6/2/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

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