Re: Designing RAC Storage For A Small University

"Tim" <0x0045_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131141476.979260.278550_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > RAC is a high availability solution. Do you need that much
> > availability?
>
> No, what we are more worried about is clustering for performance rather
> than availability. I want to build a cluster (oops, I guess they're
> called grids now) of small relatively inexpensive (3-4k) wintel boxes
> and demonstrate how it's both faster and cheaper than HP hunk of steel.
> If we have to shell out this much for a storage unit then it starts
> becoming not as much cheaper...
>
> > One can configure a stand by database on a different server and fall
> > over to that system pretty quickly if your primary server goes down.
>
> This is our fallback plan if we can't get a real clustered solution
> working.
>
> > There's a bunch of vendors out there that should be able to quote you
> > prices and features for a minimal RAC configuration if that's
> > absolutely what you want.
>
> The sticky point is that we already have the servers as they're from
> other projects and were already acquired; the idea of clustering them
> is a recent one and so I began to investigate the requirements.
>
> Riddle me this, though: there seem to be plenty of cheap NAS boxes out
> there like the HP ProLiant DL100 -
> http://h18006.www1.hp.com/products/storageworks/dl100storageserver/ .
> This seems a much more reasonable price point. Will this work with an
> Oracle RAC? Or is RAC not even the only clustering option for Oracle
> servers?
>
> As you can tell, I'm a bit lost in all this :-)
>

Consider Mac servers and storage. You could get 2 Mac servers with 2 CPUs each and like 5 terabytes of storage for under 30K with 3 years of maint. Jim Received on Fri Nov 04 2005 - 20:42:52 CST