RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?

From: Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:33:00 -0700
Message-ID: <65C0D8935651CB4D96E97CEFAC5A12B90AFE03@wafedixm10.corp.weyer.pri>

Whoa, a SAN is non-redundant???
=20

I agree it could still be a SPOF but it certainly is redundant component = wise...
=20

I guess you're entitled to your opinion regarding rather RAC provides HA = for the Oracle Instance or not. Keyword here is Instance. RAC provides = HA at the Oracle instance, that does not exclude you from addressing the = other SPOFs in your environment (to what degree your budget = allows)...but if 1 instance in the RAC cluster should go down, there = should be others available to handle the workload...
=20

My definition HA for the Oracle instance is really just that there is = minimal downtime should 1 instance in the RAC cluster be unavailable. = What does any other HA clustering solution provide? It simply restarts = the Oracle instance on the standby node...
=20

If you have a different definition of HA, well that maybe that's where = we're miscommunicating...=20
=20

---

From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill_at_gmail.com] Sent: Wed 6/1/2005 5:18 PM
To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: 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:=20

	Well RAC is not the SAN right? RAC is HA for the Oracle Instance.
	=20
	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...
	=20

	Thanks!=20

	=20

________________________________

	From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill_at_gmail.com]=20
	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?

=09
=09
=09

        On 6/1/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit =
<somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com> wrote:=20

		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
	=09


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


=09

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

database.
=09

	--=20
	Jared Still
	Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

=09
=09

--=20
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

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

Received on Wed Jun 01 2005 - 22:37:56 CDT