Thanks, Tom M. had sent those to me privately also. Those papers were exactly what I was looking for... I was trying to go beyond the hype of RAC and see how people justify the costs of RAC -- apparently there're opinions on both sides on this topic... Thanks for sharing...=20 Thanks!=20 -----Original Message----- From: delysid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:delysid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:27 PM To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit Cc: Jared Still; Vlado Barun; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Oracle RAC cost justification? RAC and a cost effective solution is an oxymoron. Add another node... If you have'nt seen these papers, they sum it up nicely and accuratly in my opinion: http://www.miracleas.dk/WritingsFromMogens/YouProbablyDontNeedRACUSVersi on.pdf http://www.miracleas.dk/images/upload/Docs/MS%20OracleRAC%20whitepaper.p df --=20 .. David > Well RAC is not the SAN right? RAC is HA for the Oracle Instance. > > If you're saying the total HA solution involves eliminating all SPOFs, > I'd agree but cost is always a limiting factor in that regard... > > Thanks! > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:04 PM > To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit > Cc: Vlado Barun; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification? > > > > On 6/1/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > Let's say we already have Service Guard in house. For new > implementations should we go with MCSG or look at RAC? RAC is an > HA and > scalability solution (MCSG is purely HA). I'm trying to get a > good > > > > RAC might be many things, but HA is not one of them. > > The disk subsystem is a single point of failure: you only have one > database. > > -- > Jared Still > Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist > > > > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l