Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?

HA for the Oracle Instance?
You're kidding, right?

If you have SPOF, it isn't HA.

A non-dedundant disk system is a rather glaring SPOF.

On 6/2/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: