Disable spanning tree? Not a bad idea, but how about getting rid of
routing altogether?
Now, I don't personally use RAC, and haven't used OPS in many years.
But my gut instinct tells me to build the networks thus:
* One or more "public" network interfaces, each on its own switch if possible. These are the networks that your listeners will listen on, and that users (and DBAs) will use to connect to the database (or login to the operating system). Redundant routers might be a nice touch, but may be overkill if you happen to have a high-availability router... * At least two interfaces (in each node, of course) for the "private" or "interconnect" networks. Each network should (must) have its own switch, and ideally should NOT be connected to a router. Unless your RAC nodes are (many) miles apart , routing should not be necessary for these networks. At best routers do nothing. At worst, they add latency, provide opportunities for DOS attacks, and give you a number of neat ways to shoot yourself in the foot. Or both feet. And, of course, failure to use switches on these networks is *known* to cause trouble...
Cheers, -- Mark.
ææçé wrote:
Pete Sharman wrote:
Yep, as you found out the hard way crossover cables aren't supported. Too many problems that magically disappear when you switch to a switch (if you get what I mean!)
We strongly recommend the desactivation of spanning-tree for cluster network. (as the architecture should not need spt)
on cisco: int fa0/1 spanning-tree fast
will do it.
Just a little tip, but we had several problems before we found out.
Regards
Kuon