RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?

From: David <thump_at_cosmiccooler.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:49:51 -0700
Message-ID: <000201c569e6$3a6d18b0$6401a8c0@winston>

It works fine...
Users get errors and have to reconnect.
If that is okay, then that is cool.
For what I do though, that is unacceptable.

My point is I bet you can accomplish the same without RAC.

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org =
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of rjamya
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:55 AM
To: thump_at_cosmiccooler.org
Cc: mgogala_at_allegientsystems.com; tim_at_evdbt.com; Oracle Discussion List Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?

We do and I can tell you, if implemeted correctly, it works fine. = Hundreds=20
of our users who rely on split-second response times do not even know if =

their application gets moved from one node to another. Might be because = for=20
such critical sessions we do pre-connects. but yes, it works. For=20 applications it is usually few seconds when they get errors and have to=20 connect again.
Raj

On 6/2/05, David <thump_at_cosmiccooler.org> wrote:

>=20

> Who is using TAF here?
> Does it work seamlessy or transparantly? No issues?
> If you lose a node/instance, what happens next? Is there any impact on =

> the others heads in terms of smon/eviction? How long does it take to=20
> get the application to start hitting an instance an another node?
>=20
>=20

---

select standard_disclaimer from company_requirements where category =3D=20 'MANDATORY';

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




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

Received on Sun Jun 05 2005 - 11:54:37 CDT