Re: New architecture using Clusterware
- From: Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracledba.williams@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:42:25 +0100
Hello Dennis,
I managed an identical situation dismantling old Solaris with SunOS 9
+ VCS + Oracle 10gR2 and moving to Linux+ASM.
I agree with cost effective, this is clear, but about the stability
and manageability of system I am still perplexed. What I can say is
- ASM is stable but we've found dozens of bugs, some with patch, some
without, some where oracle is still trying to understand
- Support sucks. No other word here, everytime you mention ASM and
CLUSTER they answer RAC. Seriously seems that nobody in the world run
standard active/passive cluster architecture
- Cluster configuration: is not really clear how you should proceed
for configuration. I mean: ASM have to be compiled with 'rac on' of
'rac off'? Resources should move with srvctl standard configuration or
custom scripts? etc.
I probably have other interesting things I do not remember in this
moment, but ift's a good discussion theme.
Thank you for starting this thread, hope to read other interesting experience.
Ste
On 15 January 2013 22:28, Dennis Williams <oracledba.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> List,
> Traditionally we've supported databases with Solaris servers using VCS.
> These are medium-sized databases with average availability requirements.
> Nothing leading-edge.
> We are considering a new cluster of servers. I'm wondering if Linux and
> Oracle Clusterware (but not RAC) is a cost-effective solution that would
> provide adequate availability. Has anyone on this list taken that approach?
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis Williams
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
--
http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
The SQLServerAgent service depends on the MSSQLServer service, which
has failed due to the following error: The operation completed
successfully.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
