FreeLists / oracle-l / Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers

[Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx>
To: dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: richard.goulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mssql_2002@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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