RE: RAC design question
- From: "Walker, Jed S" <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Martin Bach <development@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Frits Hoogland <frits.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx>, "toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx" <toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:04:27 +0000
Thank you Martin, Frits, Toon, and Kumar.
Question though, If I have a service with one preferred instance and multiple
available instances I believe it should still failover with TAF to any of the
available instances shouldn’t it? My understanding is that multiple preferred
instances is for spreading the load across multiple instances, not failover.
From: Martin Bach [mailto:development@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Frits Hoogland; toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Walker, Jed S; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RAC design question
Hi,
I would like to put one or two more points into the discussion.
If you would like to prevent connections from dropping by employing TAF you
need at least 2 preferred instances. I also got best results from FCF with the
same setup, plus it could give you runtime load balancing. But then again I
haven't heard of anyone using FCF (and UCP) in real world applications ...
Since you didn't tell us more about your application you need to decide if
these points are applicable.
If you really only needed higher availability you could have with an active
passive cluster and saved on licenses...
How this helps,
Martin
Martin Bach
Martin Bach Consulting
http://martincarstenbach.wordpress.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martincarstenbach
----- Reply message -----
From: "Frits Hoogland" <frits.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2011 08:57
Subject: RAC design question
To: "toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx" <toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
With the clusterware you can setup a service for every schema which can fail
over to another instance.
Frits Hoogland
http://fritshoogland.wordpress.com
mailto:frits.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx
<frits.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:frits.hoogland@xxxxxxxxx>>
cell: +31 6 53569942
Op 6 aug. 2011 om 08:22 heeft Toon Koppelaars
<toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
het volgende geschreven:
I think you've answered that design question very wisely.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Walker, Jed S <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%0b>> wrote:
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m new to RAC, but have a question. We have a 5 node RAC that supports
> multiple markets each of which has its own schema. Due to each market having
> its own schema, there is no sharing of blocks between markets. As such, I am
> thinking that it would make sense to have each market work on only one node
> because that would avoid having blocks passed between nodes, and thus should
> be good for performance. (Note: the intent behind RAC was for high
> availability, not for scaling, each node can handle the workload of multiple
> markets).****
>
> ** **
>
> Thoughts?****
>
> ** **
>
> **- **Jed****
>
> ** **
>
--
Toon Koppelaars
RuleGen BV
Toon.Koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Toon.Koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.RuleGen.com<http://www.RuleGen.com>
TheHelsinkiDeclaration.blogspot.com
(co)Author: "Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals"
www.rulegen.com/am4dp-backcover-text<http://www.rulegen.com/am4dp-backcover-text>
Other related posts:
