Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers

I don't follow--maybe you read into what I wrote. When I said "...can tolerate a failure of a single component without affecting application availability..." I meant *any* component, including storage. Not just a disk, an array too. Oh yeah, I love lots of hardware :). I once heard someone say that you either way money or availability, but you don't get to have both.

Please correct me if I misinterpreted your comment.

Dan

• Original Message ---- From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> To: dannorris_at_dannorris.com Cc: richard.goulet_at_capgemini.com; mssql_2002_at_yahoo.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:58:46 PM Subject: Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers

On Jan 21, 2008 9:53 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris_at_dannorris.com> wrote:

Dick,

Here's where I think we need to make clear what defines "high availability" versus what becomes "disaster recovery". Many sites want/need both. In my dictionary, I define high availability as a system that can tolerate a failure of a single component without affecting the application availability.

The problem I have with that definition is the the HW duplicated is not the HW most prone to failure - the storage.

--

Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Mon Jan 21 2008 - 17:14:13 CST