Re: RAC newbie question
- From: "jason arneil" <jason.arneil@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Yavor_Ivanov@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:01:46 +0100
Hello Yavor,
2008/10/7 Yavor Ivanov <Yavor_Ivanov@xxxxxxxx>
> Hello, Dan
> Yes, I see I did not explain myself to clearly... I haven't done 10g
> -> 11g RAC upgrades, but as far as I remember, 9i to 10g RAC upgrade
> requires downtime for the whole cluster during the upgrade (or "migration",
> on Oracle terms) of the clusterware. Are you sure it is possible to make
> rolling upgrade from 10g to 11g (or 11 to 12...) of the clusterware without
> downtime?
I have done an Oracle Clusterware rolling upgrade from 10.2.0.3 to
11.1.0.6and it worked as advertised without whole cluster downtime. I
Wrote it up
here:
http://jarneil.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/upgrading-to-oracle-11g-clusterware/
cheers,
jason.
--
http://jarneil.wordpress.com
>
> I'm not talking about the possibility to use the standby database to
> minimize downtime.
>
> Regards,
> Yavor Ivanov
> Oracle Certified Master
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Norris [mailto:dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 4:35 PM
> To: Yavor Ivanov
> Cc: Tom.Terrian.ctr@xxxxxxx; Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR);
> oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: RAC newbie question
>
> Yavor,
>
> I'm not sure I am clear on your recommendation. You said you'd use a
> single 9-node cluster too, but then seem to bring up topics that appear
> to suggest that a single cluster is a Bad Thing.
>
> To clarify, there is no planned downtime I can foresee that would affect
> the entire cluster. Clusterware upgrades are rolling. New ORACLE_HOMEs
> would just be added (no downtime) along side the existing ORACLE_HOMEs
> so that some databases could run on a newer version. Assuming all
> databases are either multi-instance or single-instance but could afford
> a short failover outage, no applications should have any extended
> outages. Obviously, if a database patch/upgrade is required then those
> databases would have planned outages to apply the patches (if the patch
> isn't rolling upgradable too). Of course, this is no different than if
> you were in 3, 3-node clusters.
>
> In short, I can't find any reason to "break up" the nodes into multiple
> clusters. I'd put all of them in a single cluster which I think will
> ultimately increase the overall availability of the total environment.
>
> Dan
>
> Yavor Ivanov wrote:
> > Usualy I would go with single 9-node cluster too. Same reasons.
> But there are some more things to consider here.
> >
> > Think about cluster upgrades. If you have one cluster to upgrade,
> this sounds like single downtime window. But what if one database needs a
> newer version (and newer clusterware), and the other cannot afford downtime
> at that moment? This is something rare, but it's not bad to think of it.
> >
> > Also, some influences may come from your backup / DR strategy.
> But this goes too deep, and gives too little value.
> >
> > But as I've said, I'd usually go to 9-node with every app running
> on different nodes.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yavor Ivanov
> > Oracle Certified Master
> >
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
--
http://jarneil.wordpress.com
Other related posts:
