Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers
- From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jkstill@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:14:13 -0800 (PST)
I don't follow--maybe you read into what I wrote. When I said "...can tolerate
a failure of a single component without affecting application availability..."
I meant *any* component, including storage. Not just a disk, an array too. Oh
yeah, I love lots of hardware :). I once heard someone say that you either way
money or availability, but you don't get to have both.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted your comment.
Dan
----- Original Message ----
From: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
To: dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: richard.goulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mssql_2002@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:58:46 PM
Subject: Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers
On Jan 21, 2008 9:53 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dick,
Here's where I think we need to make clear what defines "high availability"
versus what becomes "disaster recovery". Many sites want/need both. In my
dictionary, I define high availability as a system that can tolerate a failure
of a single component without affecting the application availability.
The problem I have with that definition is the the HW duplicated is
not the HW most prone to failure - the storage.
--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Other related posts:
