Re: Does it matter where the binaries are?
- From: Jeremiah Wilton <jeremiah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: stephen booth <stephenbooth.uk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:27:41 -0800 (PST)
People die if your system goes down? And you're running it on a
Toaster?
Please tell me you're not with the NHS :-)
I think "if a system goes down" is the key phrase here. What if that
system is the filer? Or the network between the hosts and the filer?
Or the host network adapter?
Will the project manager compensate the victims' families for deaths
resulting from poor availability design?
Also regarding your one ORACLE_HOME idea: Upgrading involves opening
the database and running a script, not just replacing the binaries.
If you use one binary for all databases, then you will have to run the
upgrade script simultaneously on all databases. Using one set of
toaster-mounted binaries for all the databases connected to the
storage is just a bad idea from an availability and managability
standpoint. What if you have to apply a patch? Will you shut
everyone down for that?
I apologize if this sounds too critical. You are right for asking
these questions here.
--
Jeremiah Wilton
ORA-600 Consulting
Emergencies - Seminars - Hiring
http://www.ora-600.net
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, stephen booth wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:29:10 -0600, jungwolf <spatenau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> I'm not sure why you are running a standby if everything is pointing
>> at the same filer (using NFS, right?).
>
> It's basically belt and braces. Some of these systems are safety
> critical, if a system goes down at the wrong time or if we lose the
> wrong bit of data then someone could end up dead before we can get the
> data out of paper records.
>
> More to the point the project manager likes the idea.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
