Re: To ODA or Not?
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 00:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAaXtLBqDx7zTPSmoN=m+Ye5RfNVmfUff8cvbxteVPerJFPqvw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Cool. That makes "One-node" more useful, to be sure.
Thanks, Seth.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Seth Miller <sethmiller.sm_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> *"This is what (I am told) distinguished RAC One-Node from RAC proper.
> There is never more than one instance in a One-Node setup (running or not
> running). The one and only database instance gets moved from node to node
> as the need arises."*
>
> This is incorrect. There is more than one instance connected to the
> database whenever a RAC One Node database is "relocated". This is one of
> the biggest advantages or RAC One Node. You get to take advantage of zero
> downtime rolling patches without having to pay for the full RAC
> capabilities.
>
> Seth Miller
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, MARK BRINSMEAD <mark.brinsmead_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is always how I have understood it to work.
>>
>> This is what (I am told) distinguished RAC One-Node from RAC proper.
>> There is never more than one instance in a One-Node setup (running or not
>> running). The one and only database instance gets moved from node to node
>> as the need arises.
>>
>> And this is why I get nervous about "active-passive" clusters built on
>> CRS. They look like a duck, they quack like a duck, and so during an
>> audit, I would expect them to cost the same as a duck. Plus back support
>> and penalties.
>>
>> The one distinction between the two (again, I am told) is that with RAC
>> one-node, the database is fully "RAC-ready", and a second instance *can* be
>> added without downtime.
>>
>> Its been a *long* time since I have needed to worry about any of this
>> though, and I have never enjoyed the privilege of having a customer who was
>> willing to *pay* for RAC One-Node (meaning I have never actually used
>> it). So I will bow out of the conversation here.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Oracle SID is the same on both servers in all the RAC One Node
>>> installations I have done. The database storage is shared, and if the
>>> instance on node 1 goes down, it comes up on node 2. With the same name.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Seth Miller <sethmiller.sm_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RAC One Node is not free. Nor does it have anything to do with
>>>> Clusterware. Nor does it have anything to do with MySQL. Nor is the
>>>> ORACLE_SID the same on all cluster nodes. I think you may be confused by
>>>> what RAC One Node is.
>>>>
>>>> RAC One Node allows a connection failover between two or more active
>>>> instances (temporarily) exactly the same as RAC. There is no way to achieve
>>>> this with active-passive clustering. A database is one of RAC, RAC One Node
>>>> or Single Instance. They are all mutually exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> Seth Miller
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mladen Gogala <
>>>> dmarc-noreply_at_freelists.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/28/2015 01:52 AM, MARK BRINSMEAD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When did RAC One Node become "free"? Its been a while, but the last
>>>>>> time I checked, it cost something like $5500 ($11,000?) per processor. It
>>>>>> certainly wasn't "free". (Although that doesn't mean it isn't now, I
>>>>>> guess. I have not looked at a pr
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>> Clusterware is free. You can install clusterware without paying and
>>>>> use it to fail-over MySQL service. Oracle licenses are not free.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mladen Gogala
>>>>> Oracle DBA
>>>>> http://mgogala.freehostia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew W. Kerber
>>>
>>> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>>>
>>
>>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sun Mar 29 2015 - 06:49:59 CEST